Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MIDLAND METRO BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Council Tax and Rents

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average (a) council tax levels and (b) rent levels in (i) Scotland and (ii) Strathclyde region.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The average council tax for a band D property is £559 for Scotland as a whole and £562 for Strathclyde. These figures are both exclusive of council water charges and before discounts. The average weekly local authority rent level for 1992–93 is £24·75 for Scotland and £25·21 for district councils within Strathclyde region.

Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that council tax and council rent levels have had to be fixed higher in Monklands district council than they need to be because the council has one of the highest employment levels in the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that a Scottish National party councillor has alleged that 40 close relatives of Labour councillors are employed by the council? Does he consider that the revelation by a Labour regional councillor, John Murphy, that all the allegations about nepotism and corrupt employment pratices on the council are true is significant and that the council should be brought to account?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to point to the relationship between the employment policies pursued by a council and rent and council tax levels. But I have no wish to make any party political points on the matter. Nor is there any need to do so because Labour regional councillor, John Murphy, the Labour member for Coatbridge, North and Glenboig, has said that the council was riddled with cases of nepotism and patronage. We do not need to hear from Tories about the Scottish National party. We only need to hear from someone who has worked for Monklands district council for 17 years and has been suspended—I understand because of the remarks that he made. The only surprise is that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) have maintained complete silence on the issue. But I can see that

the hon. Member for Monklands, West is itching to leap to his feet to give us his views on the suspension of Councillor Murphy.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Minister aware that many people in Scotland, but more in Dover, will be interested to know why the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is so interested in Scottish affairs, especially when unemployment in Dover has increased by 137 per cent. since 1990? Is it not about time that the hon. Member for Dover stopped neglecting his constituents and instead concerned himself with unemployment in Dover and how unemployed people will pay the council tax in that local authority?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is a meticulous and extremely hard-working constituency Member. I must remind the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. I understood from the press that the hon. Gentleman was one of the Opposition Members who believe in that proposition. His question showed the continuing embarrassment of the Labour party in Scotland about Monklandsgate.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the policy that has been adopted in Strathclyde, under which privately owned houses that were previously council owned have been rated for council tax one band higher than they would have been rated were they still in local authority ownership? Does my hon. Friend agree that every owner of such a house should appeal?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has raised a point which has already received considerable publicity. It is a matter for the assessor, of course, but my hon. Friend is right to point to the availability of the appeal mechanism. He may be reassured by the fact that no less a luminary of the Scottish left than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Left?"] Yes, from my perspective. In a statutory instrument Committee yesterday, the hon. Gentleman raised the very point made by my hon. Friend. It was reassuring to discover that Labour Members now have some sympathy for council tenants who have rightly taken advantage of the Government's policy to give them the right to buy.

Mr. Canavan: As the advent of the council tax tomorrow means that today is the last official day of the poll tax, will the Minister now admit that the poll tax was one of the most expensive blunders in the history of any Government? Has not the total cost for administration and collection of the poll tax throughout the United Kingdom now reached the staggering amount of £14 billion?
If local councillors were found guilty of that sort of misspending, they would be surcharged and banned from office for many years. Why not surcharge and ban the Minister and all the other Tory Ministers who collectively were responsible for introducing the poll tax?

Mr. Stewart: As I understand the import of the hon. Gentleman's question, he welcomes the introduction of the council tax and the fact that it will have lower administration and collection costs than the community charge. I reassure him that there will be no amnesty for


non-payers of the community charge. We welcome the hon. Gentleman's apparent underlining of the probable success of the council tax.

Legal Aid

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the proposals for legal aid reform.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): We have received a number of representations about the Government's proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for legal aid in Scotland, from the Law Society of Scotland, consumer interests, solicitors' firms, Members of Parliament and members of the public.

Mr. Watson: It would be interesting to know how many of those representations were in favour of the proposals. Why is it that under the proposals, someone in Scotland earning £62 a week who applied for legal aid today would have to pay nothing, but if he applied tomorrow he would have to pay £252 out of his £62 a week? If he were unable to afford that, he would have to abandon his claim. He would not have access to the legal system. What is that, if it is not a denial of basic justice? Will the right hon. Gentleman, even at this 11 th hour, recognise that thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of Scots will be denied access to legal aid and the legal system? Will he now withdraw those ill-advised proposals?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman substantially exaggerates the position. Only about 2 to 3 per cent. of those qualifying for legal aid this year will be affected by the proposals. When I point out that expenditure is doubling over a six-year period—it has risen from £49 million in 1988 to £100 million this year, with further substantial increases in the pipeline—the hon. Gentleman will realise that any Government have a responsibility to protect the taxpayers' interest and to ensure that the matter is kept under reasonable control.

Mr. McFall: On the Government's own figures, 100,000 people will be taken out of the eligibility category. Among these will be many thousands of women who are locked into violent relationships because they have no access to courts. Such women, with no legal recourse and living in intolerable conditions, could take the law into their own hands. Ironically, some could conceivably end up being granted criminal legal aid to defend themselves against a charge of murder. Does the Secretary of State agree that for the 22,000 women who contacted Women's Aid in Scotland last year, any cuts in legal aid availability will represent a terrible threat to their safety and that of their children?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has got his figures completely wrong. We will have an opportunity to debate this later on, but the figure is not 100,000 but some 7,500 —less than one tenth of the figure the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Moreover, we expect civil legal aid to continue to increase by up to 40 per cent. by 1995–96. Criminal legal aid is not affected by these changes.

Rail Services (Rural Areas)

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met ScotRail to discuss the future of rail services in rural Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend and I meet senior management of British Rail from time to time. Such contacts cover a wide range of topics relating to rail services in Scotland.

Mrs. Michie: Is the Minister aware of the widespread belief in Scotland that the privatisation of British Rail will mean the end of many rural lines? The Secretary of State for Transport has given no guarantee for the future of these services, which will spell disaster for many areas, particularly north of Glasgow and Edinburgh. What did the Minister or his right hon. Friend do to try and prevent Railfreight from hiking up its costs to the oil companies on the West Highland line, forcing them to travel on the roads to Oban, Mallaig and Fort William? What has happened to the Government's commitment to the environment? They are just making the roads more congested and creating more pollution. What happened to their promise to put more freight on to the railways?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have repeatedly given a commitment to provide subsidy and to support services in rural areas which, although loss making, provide invaluable social services. Our franchising proposals are based on a desire to bring the benefits of private sector provision to all passenger services and to make them more responsive. We see the railways being used to a greater extent in future. As to the traffic on the West Highland line, unfortunately it is heavily loss making, failing to make any contribution to the infrastructure and not covering the operational costs. Customers have been unable to agree to British Rail's remedial action, which would have returned the service to viability. We are encouraging more freight to use rail by widening the criteria for section 8 grants, by the proposed new grant scheme for the payment of track charges and by the publication of a consultation paper on lorry weight initiatives.

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister assure the people of Inverclyde that privatisation will not threaten the work of repairing the Newton Street tunnel and Wemyss bay? We are already seeing a deterioration in our services as the railways fatten up for privatisation. Will the Minister assure the people of Inverclyde that they will continue to receive a good service, not one which is run down?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is very important that the hon. Gentleman's constituents continue to receive that service. We recognise the importance of ensuring the necessary investment through Railtrack, which will be responsible for investment in the track and for looking after bridges throughout Scotland. We will support investment in the railways where the schemes do not gain an adequate rate of return but provide a statisfactory cost-benefit return and benefits to the communities concerned.

Scottish Government

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has so far received to his White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good".

Mr. Lang: The response to the publication of the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good", has been generally very favourable.

Mr. McAllion: The White Paper offers only procedural tinkering with the Standing Orders of the Westminster Parliament while continuing to lock Scottish business into a voting procedure dominated by Tory votes from the south. Why cannot the Secretary of State see that that is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of the Scottish people, who are demanding their own national Parliament under their own democratic control? If he does not accept what I am saying, why does not he let the Scottish people speak for themselves in a multi-option referendum? If he is not prepared to trust the Scottish people with such a referendum, why on earth should they be prepared to trust him with anything?

Mr. Lang: Once again, the hon. Gentleman, because he is not in a position to exercise power in this place through the will of the electorate, seeks to change the rules or move the goalposts. The fact is that the vast majority of the people of Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, want to maintain the Union and have one United Kingdom Parliament. The Courier and Advertiser, the hon. Gentleman's local newspaper, said:
Scots MPs have the opportunity to become less confrontational. This would be good for Scotland, maybe even for Parliament.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best possible news for those of us who seek to preserve and, indeed, to strengthen the Union were the howls of outrage from Opposition Members, who seek to undermine the Union? That is eloquent testimony that my right hon. Friend has it absolutely right. Will he give a commitment that, in its new role, the Scottish Grand Committee will come to Aberdeen to debate matters of great importance to that city and the north-east of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion and I will certainly give it consideration. The Scottish Grand Committee is one Committee which is advanced by the proposals in the White Paper, but the Committee of the Regions is also mentioned. The White Paper says that
the Government will ensure that Scotland has substantial representation on it.
In that context, I am indebted to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) for drawing my attention to the SNP's campaign handbook, which described the Committee of the Regions as a
toothless regional Committee which would lock Scotland out of decision-making in the European Community.

Sir David Steel: The one item of interest in an otherwise colourless White Paper was the proposal to hold Question Time in the Scottish Grand Committee. The Secretary of State has been very coy about how often he expects that to happen. Will he tell us now?

Mr. Lang: I believe that these matters should be discussed through the usual channels and that we should move forward by general agreement across the Floor of the House. I look forward to those discussions in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people in Scotland feel that strengthening this Parliament and its operations is the best way to reinforce the Union and to secure its future. The White Paper proposes additional meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee and increased opportunities to ask questions, which can only be positive and good. Will he bear it in mind—I hope that the House will do so, too—that it is important that amendments to legislation directly affecting Scotland are fully and properly debated?

Mr. Lang: I will certainly reflect carefully on what my hon. Friend suggests, but I am grateful for his support for the White Paper, which is clearly designed to strengthen the interests of Scotland within the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mrs. Ewing: Is not the Secretary of State very precious about his own position, which is why he sets his face against the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland? He uses his powers as a colonial governor to impose alien policies on the people of Scotland. Is not the real challenge to all Opposition Members of the House to stop sitting on Green Benches and to stand up for Scotland, to support the recall of a Scottish Parliament and to oppose water privatisation? Will they stand in their places for a Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Lang: I am not an appointed governor-general, but, like the hon. Lady, an elected Member of Parliament. As to the rest of her question, perhaps I should offer to write to her.

Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Secretary of State writes to the hon. Lady, will he publish that letter and the rest of the correspondence? When he considers representations on these constitutional matters, will he consider the paper that was presented this morning by the Scottish Foundation for Economic Research at the new Glasgow Caledonian university? It studied achievements in Germany, especially in the socialist region of Nord Rhein-Westphalia, and found that, because of the devolution of power, unemployment is half that in Scotland and growth is 20 per cent. more. If subsidiarity works in Germany and in Europe, why is not it good for Scotland, especially when that is what the Scots want?

Mr. Lang: I am not sure what these facile comparisons between the constitution of the United Kingdom and that of Germany have to do with the question before us, but, if the hon. Gentleman wants comparisons, he can consider the fact that inflation and interest rates have fallen sharply in this country and that we have a competitive exchange rate and are moving out of recession while Germany is still facing considerable problems. The hon. Gentleman may not be so keen on making comparisons in a few months' time.

Victoria Infirmary and Rutherglen Maternity Hospital

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about the future of Victoria infirmary and Rutherglen maternity hospital; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stewart: Since the Greater Glasgow health board released details of its review of acute and maternity services in November last year, my right hon. Friend has received eight representations, including this question, on the future of the hospitals. I look forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.

Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister join me in expressing appreciation to all the staff at both hospitals for the service that they give to Glasgow, East Kilbride and my constituency? Will the Minister accept that the uncertainty and insecurity being caused by the review is doing great damage to the morale of all the staff, patients and potential patients attending the hospitals? Will he put an end to that uncertainty by instructing the health board that there is no need to close any hospital in Glasgow?

Mr. Stewart: I can of course agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point and pay tribute to the staff of the hospitals for their valuable contribution. The Victoria unit handles some 31,000 in-patient and some 400,000 out-patient treatments a year, but it is right to have a review of acute and maternity services. That review is aimed at improving services for the people of Glasgow and beyond and would involve substantial sums of extra public expenditure.

Mrs. Fyfe: The Opposition have their vision of the kind of maternity services in particular which should be made available not only to Glasgow but to Scotland as a whole. Will the Minister kindly describe his vision of the maternity services that he wants to see in the coming century?

Mr. Stewart: I wish, as I am sure the hon. Lady does, to see continuing improvements in maternity services. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) said, proposals have been convassed for the transfer to the Royal of maternity services currently provided in Rutherglen. One must put the long-term interests of patients first. We are talking about proposals which might involve substantial extra sums of investment—not cuts —to improve health care in the Greater Glasgow area.

Roads (Fife)

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future road programme in Fife.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new east Fife regional road is proving a great success, and our future plans for Fife will bring further benefits. We announced in February major proposals for the firth of Forth including a second Forth road bridge. We are currently studying a west Fife regional road as part of our longer-term network.

Mr. Campbell: The Minister will know that the A91 trunk road for which his Department has responsibility runs through my constituency and in particular through the town of Cupar. Will he tell my constituents why he is

delaying the authorisation of the Bonargate relief road and the Cupar bypass, both of which are necessary not only for safety and convenience but for the protection of the environment?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Traffic management schemes are currently being proposed for Cupar. There are proposals for a bypass not only in Cupar but in Auchtermuchty. The criteria for bypasses include traffic flow and composition, safety considerations, environmental factors, feasibility and the relationship to local and national developments. One of the features of the trunk road network review which we carried out last year was the recommendation that we should concentrate on the strategic routes in the first instance. A number of bypasses cannot therefore go ahead as quickly as some of us would wish.

Mr. Home Robertson: As there is already a dual carriageway across the firth of Forth, does the Minister accept that there should be no need for a second Forth road bridge if the Government would only co-operate with local authorities and ScotRail to provide better commuter services for the communities on both sides of the firth of Forth? Does he accept the case for a passenger transport executive to serve not only the people of Fife but the people of Lothian region in my constituency?

Lord James Douglas Hamilton: We are putting forward a package of proposals for both Fife and the Lothian region. We believe that a second road crossing of the Forth is necessary because the number and length of major delays will escalate year after year out of all proportion to what is considered reasonable or satisfactory.

Mr. Home Robertson: What about a proper train service?

Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the key elements for a package is to provide more rail stops not only in Fife—

Mr. Home Robertson: And trains.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree. That is one of the key factors that we shall consider. We are awaiting representations and a feasibility study from the regions concerned, and a package of measures from Lothian region which we shall consider sympathetically as part of the whole. It is not only the Al which is important for Scotland, but all the infrastructure prospects for the east of Scotland.

Steel Workers (Retraining)

Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of steel workers made redundant at Ravenscraig and now retraining under official schemes administered by the Lanarkshire Development Agency are retraining for skills in manufacturing.

Mr. Stewart: About 1,000 steel workers made redundant at Ravenscraig are retraining under official schemes administered by the Lanarkshire development ar j 2–9gency. Many are training for a wide variety of skills and qualifications on about 120 courses, including several that could be applied in various contexts, including manufacturing. About 12 per cent. are retraining for skills specific to manufacturing.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister not worried that the proportion of experienced and skilled production workers training for manufacturing in the industrial heartland of Scotland is so appallingly low? Is he not aware that the same mistrust of the prospects for employment is shared by young people in Lanarkshire schools, who see no prospects for manufacturing under the Government? Do the Government intend to do nothing about that?

Mr. Stewart: As I have said, many of the steel workers have chosen courses in management, quality assurance, and so on, which are clearly related to manufacturing although not specific to it. Manufacturing output in Scotland has risen in the past five years and, according to all the surveys, the prospects for exports, output and orders are highly positive. Ultimately, it is for individual former steel workers to choose the courses that they perceive to be in their best individual long-term interests.

Dr. Reid: Is the Minister not worried that only 12 per cent. of people being trained in the industrial heartland of Scotland are being trained for manufacturing industry? Does he not recognise that part of the problem in Lanarkshire, and especially in Motherwell, was that we are entirely dependent on one or two industries, while recovery, not only in Lanarkshire but in Scotland as a whole, depends on training people for a range of manufacturing skills? Is the Minister not disappointed that 88 per cent. of the people being retrained in Scotland's industrial heartland are not being trained for industry or manufacturing?

Mr. Stewart: As I explained to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), that figure is not correct. Many of the skills for which people are training could be used in manufacturing as well as in other sectors o f the economy. However, I entirely agree with the more general point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) that in Lanarkshire, as elsewhere in Scotland, it is essential to have a more diversified economic structure for the future. That, indeed, is the essence of the strategy being pursued by the Lanarkshire development agency with, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the full co-operation of the local authorities and the private sector.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept thai the problems in Lanarkshire must be seen against the backdrop of a quarter of a million fewer jobs in manufacturing industry than the Government inherited and a quarter of a million Scots languishing on the dole? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that 10,000 young Scots under the age of 18, many of them in Lanarkshire, simply cannot find training places? What, precisely, are the Government prepared to do about the spectre of unemployment and lack of training which is so repugnant to the people of Lanarkshire?

Mr. Stewart: Expenditure on training and related programmes under this Government is two and a half times—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to hear the figures. It is two and a half times what it was in real terms during the last year of the Labour Government. It is now £2·8 billion—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not like to hear the figures, so I will just give them another one. The most recent CBI industrial trends survey for manufacturing firms in Scotland shows that firms themselves intend to increase expenditure on training and

retraining in Scotland and in manufacturing industry. I should have thought that even Labour Members would welcome that.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just jobs in manufacturing but manufacturing output which matters? Will he confirm that manufacturing output in Scotland fell under Labour whereas it has risen dramatically under this Government? In the days of Labour's industrial strategy, was not British Steel one of the world's largest loss makers, whereas now it is one of the most successful steel companies in the world? Labour Members opposed the closure of Ravenscraig and they could have gone into the last election committed to keeping it open, but they did not even have the guts to do that.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all the points that he has made. He is right, for example, about the increase in manufacturing in Scotland. There is a question from my hon. Friend on that specific subject later on the Order Paper. He is also right to point to the fact that manufacturing productivity in Scotland in the 1980s has increased by 5·2 per cent. per annum on average. That contrasts with 2 per cent. during the 1970s and 4·1 per cent. during the 1960s. The figure is higher than that of any of the major seven OECD economies. Those are very positive facts about the Scottish economy. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question. He ought to be allowed to listen to the answer. I should like to make a little more progress. Has the Minister completed his answer?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am most obliged.

University Funding

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for assuming responsibility for funding the eight Scottish universities formerly funded by the Universities Funding Council.

Mr. Lang: I have established the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council which assumes responsibility on 1 April for payment of grants for teaching and research in Scottish higher education institutions.

Dr. Godman: Although I do not expect the Secretary of State to agree with me, may I nevertheless point out to him that the study of Scottish history and of the Scottish trade union movement is as important academically as those applied subjects that much more readily earn revenue in industry and elsewhere? Where funding is concerned, may I ask him for an assurance that scholars and departments specialising in Scottish history and Scottish labour history will not be discriminated against compared with other departments and faculties, particulary those that are seen as revenue earners?

Mr. Lang: As one who read history at university, I of course support the funding of history. The important thing is that one learns the lessons of history. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, while funding decisions of the kind that he describes are for the funding council


and not for me, the council has decided to increase the grant allocation for teaching and research to his own former university of Heriot Watt by 9·6 per cent.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the timing of his proposals for local government reform; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The Government have received a number of representations about the timing of our proposals for local government reform, offering a range of views.

Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the earliest possible date for the introduction of the popular single-tier authorities, which will be nearer to the people and better understood by the people and will get rid of the present confusion with the dual-purpose or two-tier authorities, can only be an advantage to, and will be welcomed by, the majority of people in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend I am sure that he is absolutely right. It is clear that our decision to go in favour of single-tier, all-purpose authorities is widely welcomed around Scotland.

Mr. Wray: Does the Secretary of State intend to set up a commission? During the previous period of local government reform, we had the Wheatley commission,
and we had Bains Maude and Patterson Luke looking at
management structure. Does the Secretary of State intend to follow a similar course, or will there be a ham and eggs solution for local government reform?

Mr. Lang: No. The Wheatley commission had the task of reducing 426 local authorities of widely disparate and different types to a more rational organisation of 65 authorities. Our task is, therefore, much easier. For that reason, we see no need for a commission in Scotland, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales saw no need for a commission in Wales.

Mr. Kynoch: Is my right hon. Friend aware of my visit yesterday to the Under-Secretary of State, our hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), in the company of two representatives of Kincardine and Deeside district council, to present responses from 6,600 homes in Kincardine and Deeside, all of which support single-tier authorities and all of which support a single-tier authority based on the area of Kincardine and Deeside? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in rural areas it is more important to consider geographical area than population when considering the best and most cost-effective way to provide local services?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware of his visit and I congratulate him on the assiduous way in which he advances the interests of his constituents. I will take into account all the submissions that have come from that part of the country. My hon. Friend will also be aware that my hon. Friends and I have to take account of a broad range of issues that are applicable across the whole of Scotland in reaching our final decisions. We hope to do that towards the end of the summer. We shall then publish our results.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Secretary of State announce his plans to privatise Scottish water before or after he announces his plans to change Scottish local government? Does he concede that he will privatise against the overwhelming wishes of the Scottish people—including the business community, which wishes water services to remain as a local authority service? Does it not worry the right hon. Gentleman that the only person whom he has persuaded, albeit briefly, to accept the franchising of Scottish water is the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have reached no view on the future of water and sewerage services. We have published a consultation paper, to which there have been many responses, and we are now analysing those responses carefully. The process is bound to take some time. We will bring forward our proposals in the summer and the House will then have an opportunity to consider them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that my right hon. Friend listens carefully to the views of Opposition Members. Has he had a full submission from the Labour party and from other Opposition parties about how they wish local government to be set up? How many Opposition Members have written to my right hon. Friend asking for a particular form of local government in their area?

Mr. Lang: That is a very shrewd question. We have heard a great deal about what Labour Members are against, but there has been a severe lack of positive and constructive suggestions from them—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—until it comes to their own areas, and self-interest then comes running through strong and fast.

Mr. Hood: May I mention a little bit of self-interest? Are not the Government overcutting to fund the new local government reform? Some £14 million of road borrowing consent was cut in Strathclyde regional council, which means that the Stonehouse bypass will be cancelled once again and the Ayr road, which affects the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is also cancelled. That is what the Government are doing, and they should stop trying to kid us that they are not.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the question of self-interest. I know that he and the Clydesdale district have advanced a strong case for single-tier status for their area. On the question of cuts, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Funding for local government this year has been running at a level substantially higher than the current rate of inflation. The Ayr road will feature in the roads programme which is to be published very shortly.

Mr. McLeish: Is the Secretary of State now willing to apologise to the House and to the Scottish people for the publication of the discredited and disgraceful document on cost prepared by Touche Ross? More important, is he willing to publish details of the letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury asking him to cut £700 million from his budget over the next two to three years? Will he concede that proceeding with local government reform at this time would be an act of monumental stupidity as we face a financial crisis created by that lot on the Government Benches?

Mr. Lang: If it is publication of correspondence that the hon. Gentleman is after, he has come to the wrong party. I am sorry about that. With regard to the cost of local government reform, the Touche Ross report was published with a very clear indication from the Government that further work might well be needed to refine the figures. In the light of further information, there are suggestions that the figures may not be quite so accurate as was originally indicated—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but the underlying trend is in no way changed by subsequent information. What is indicated by most submissions is that a small number of large authorities would not create such huge savings as was indicated, and that a large number of small authorities would not be so costly as was indicated. It is absolutely clear that the figures used by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—additional costs said to range between £400 million and £600 million —are absolute rubbish.

Village Schools

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further assistance he proposes to enable local authorities to maintain small village schools in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend already has regard to the needs of rural areas by taking sparsity of population and the percentage of pupils in small schools into account in distributing Government support for local authority spending. We are issuing guidelines for devolved school management today.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister acknowledge the value of village schools in underpinning rural communities, notwithstanding the way in which consultation processes have been carried out by local authorities and notwithstanding their excuses in terms of educational need? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that rural education authorities are strapped for cash and cannot afford to keep some rural schools open? The Borders education authority is thinking of closing St. Abbs school and Heiton school in my constituency. Will the hon. Gentleman look very carefully at those proposals from the point of view of the Scottish Education Department? Will he come to the villages of St. Abbs and Heiton and talk to regional councillors, villagers and parents to assess for himself the damage that would be done by the closure of either school?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I realise that rural communities attach the greatest importance to their schools, but such areas are not immune from decline in school rolls and it is for local democracy and local authorities to determine provision of education in their areas. The Secretary of State is not entitled to intervene, except in a few cases in which the Secretary of State's consent is required by statute; for example, in the case of primary schools, such consent is required if a school to which it is proposed to transfer pupils is more than five miles from the school proposed for closure, or where a school is 80 per cent. full. I will be visiting schools in Scotland, and if the hon. Gentleman has particular proposals to make, perhaps he could let me know in due course. However, the Secretary of State has no plans at present to change the statutory arrangements.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: In the case of my former primary school, I do not like the mathematical approach that the Scottish Office appears to adopt towards investment in primary education. There is a vast dividend in decency, manners and public responsibility to be derived from teaching in primary schools in rural areas. If we are to prevent crime, it would be very wise to spend much more in that area than is proposed by mathematics.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Expenditure per pupil has increased by more than half in real terms since 1978–79. Expenditure on educational building has increased from £61·3 million in 1988 to £82·8 million in 1992–93. However, we will bear the comments of my hon. and learned Friend very much in mind.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister recall that there are a large number of small village schools in my large rural constituency? Does he agree that there is much greater likelihood of those rural schools staying open if, under the reorganisation of local government, we have an all-Ayrshire authority as recommended by four out of five Ayrshire Members, by three out of four district councils, by Enterprise Ayrshire and by the vast majority of the people who wrote to the Secretary of State, as I did? And is the Minister aware that I would have made all those points if I had been called on the last question?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's bid, but that will, of course, be a matter for a future decision. With regard to rationalisation in Ayrshire, local circumstances and educational considerations will have to be a top priority so far as the regional council is concerned.

Primary Schools

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Current expenditure per primary pupil in 1990–91 was 50 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. The latest figure is £1,508 per primary pupil.

Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say how those excellent figures square with claims of cuts in primary education in recent years?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, we have a very good record in that matter. Expenditure per pupil has increased enormously. It is particularly significant today, the day before Scots universities and further education colleges come under Scottish Office control, that Scots schools produce proportionally more young people who have obtained the normal entry qualification for higher education. The figure is 27 per cent. of school leavers in Scotland compared with 22 per cent. south of the border. That is a testimony to the effectiveness and strength of the Scottish education system.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Visiting primary schools in my constituency, I have found that the level of dedication among the teachers is second to none. However, I often hear complaints from teachers who say that the problems would be better resolved if school maintenance were


considered. Sometimes the facilities in which the pupils and teachers have to work leave a lot to be desired. I put that down to the fact that the local education authority has been starved of finance and I hope that central Government will put in more finance to help those dedicated teachers.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are today issuing guidelines for devolved school management to schools and authorities in Scotland. That can decidedly help in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Any scheme for devolved management should continue to make appropriate funding available to meet the needs, for example, of maintenance of such schools. Those authorities that have pioneered pilot schemes have proved that they are working well and have gained the confidence of the schools taking part.

Nuisance Telephone Calls

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions for nuisance telephone calls have been taken out in the Elgin area in each of the past six months.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: During the months of September, October and December 1992, and January and February 1993, there were no such prosecutions in Elgin sheriff court or Moray district court. In November 1992, however, there were two such prosecutions—one in Elgin sheriff court and the other in Moray district court.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I do not suppose that a nice young man like my hon. Friend has ever been pestered by unwanted telephone calls, even from double glazing salesmen. He will know, however, that that remarkable record has been achieved because British Telecom has piloted a new system of telephones in Elgin which display the number of the caller. Just by sprinkling 500 of those throughout the population, nuisance calls have been cut to almost nil because we can now pin the heavy breathers down. Will he join me in congratulating British Telecom on piloting that excellent scheme? We hope that, like many innovations that start in Scotland, it will be transferred to the British Isles generally so that we may all benefit from it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is correct. The scheme in Elgin, which involved 500 customers, ends today and the results will now be assessed. Our first impressions are that it has been extremely well received and that similar schemes should be implemented elsewhere.

Mr. Donohoe: Why is similar instrumentation 11legal in this country and cannot be connected to the British Telecom network?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I will look into it. As I said, it has been an extremely valuable scheme which should be taken forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) explained, the telephone number of the caller is flashed up, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. There are problems for those who are ex-directory for security and other reasons, but they can have their numbers excluded.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the change in the level of manufacturing output in Scotland over the last five years.

Mr. Stewart: Manufacturing output in Scotland increased by more than 13·5 per cent. in the five years between 1986 and 1991.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging response. Is he aware that many people wishing to invest in manufacturing look to Scotland because of the area's fine history in manufacturing over the centuries and because of the work ethic and skills of the Scottish people? What steps are the Scottish Office taking to identify areas that are rich and ripe for import substitution—that is, to substitute goods that we import with goods that we can produce in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, especially as his knowledge of manufacturing industry is widely appreciated across the Floor of the House and outside. I refer him to the strategy document published by Scottish Enterprise, which refers to Scotland's outstanding record on exports, which reached their highest ever level in 1991, and points to areas with potential for import substitution. I can best answer my hon. Friend by saying that Scotland should develop as a niche economy, indentifying the best opportunities for a small economy operating competitively in European and world markets.

Mr. Davidson: What is the Minister prepared to do to help maintain manufacturing in the west of Scotland? In particular, are the Government prepared to undertake any activity to help maintain Rolls-Royce employment levels in the area? What is the Scottish Office prepared to do to try to provide Kvaerner, Govan with the order for the new helicopter carrier about to be ordered by the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that latter point, which is bound to be a competitive decision by the Ministry of Defence. In answering his earlier question about Rolls-Royce, I emphasise what the company has said—that it wishes to be, and is determined to be, competitive in a highly competitive world market and that it believes that both its plants, at Hillington and East Kilbride, have a continuing role in that endeavour. Of course, redundancies are always regrettable, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the general strategy of Rolls-Royce in ensuring that it remains competitive in world markets.

A75 (Dual Carriageway)

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to provide a dual carriageway on the A75 between Stranraer and Gretna Green.

Mr. Lang: At the present time, there are no proposals to provide a dual carriageway on the A75. The A75 was substantially upgraded during the 1980s and schemes planned for future years on this route will improve safety and overtaking opportunities further.

Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how much the great improvements on that road over the years have been welcomed by people from Northern Ireland? Does he agree that due to the success of the Larne-Stranraer and Larne-Cairnryan routes, the increase in the volume of traffic has overwhelmed the speed of improvement on that important Euroroute? Does he recognise that a high-quality infrastructure of roads is necessary for development? Will he, therefore, make every effort to install as much dual carriageway as possible on that route in the near future? If money is available from Europe, when he is looking for it—as I hope he will—will he take with him his right hon. and learned Friend the

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and treat the road through to Belfast as one Euroroute? That is the best way to approach the whole problem.

Mr. Lang: I understand absolutely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As I am sure he will appreciate, he and I have a great affinity of interest in the matter. We have spent substantial sums on the route—about £85 million has been spent on the A75 since the Government came to office, and we have further plans for continuing work on the road. We are upgrading the A74 to motorway standard and we also have plans to spend more resources on the A76 and the A77. I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of a good infrastructure, and it is something to which I am committed.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Scottish Office informed me by telephone today that the Secretary of State would be making a statement on the transfer of the Scottish prison service to an executive agency; that would be done in my constituency tomorrow at Polmont at the Scottish prison service college. The impression was that the statement and the framework document would be available to the House for discussion. It appears that once again the Secretary of State is using a planted question to provide the information. It is on the Order Paper but the answer will not be available until after today's sitting is finished. Is that not once again an abuse of the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Madam Speaker: On about three occasions in the last 10 parliamentary days I have made it clear to the House that it is for a Minister himself to decide how an announcement is made. Whether it is done at the Dispatch Box or by means of a written answer is up to the Minister. It has nothing to do with the Chair. I am sorry that I continually have to repeat myself on these matters. I regret that a point of order is used for that purpose.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 19 January, at column 261 of Hansard, you responded to a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), deploring the practice of civil servants putting in questions on behalf of Ministers. I have a letter, of which a copy has been made available, in which the private secretary to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment not only asks the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) to table a question but encloses the answer. The question was tabled subsequently by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). I should like your guidance on whether it is an abuse of the House when the Government and civil servants conspire to stitch up the business of the House.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in my earlier ruling, I deprecated the action referred to, on the sound grounds that the question itself had not been signed by the hon. Member. As I understand it, that is not so in this case. There is nothing wrong with a question being tabled for written answer, so long as the question has been tabled properly. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse this with the earlier incident; it is not the same. In the earlier instance, the question form was pre-signed. In this case, there is nothing wrong with it, so long as the question has been signed and tabled properly.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have received a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office, which says:
Following the practice agreed by the House in relation to other executive agencies, written questions about matters that fall within the Director-General's delegated responsibilities will normally be referred to him for reply.
That is about the question of the prison service, and the letter is an explanation of the new circumstances.
As Speaker, you are in charge of the procedure for allowing questions to be submitted and the provision of answers. I am concerned that there may have been a

practice, albeit a controversial one, in which questions have been allocated by Ministers to the directors-general of various executive agencies. Surely that was limited to those specific executive agencies which have to some degree been agreed by the House, albeit with great reluctance.
It now appears that the Home Office is simply allocating responsibilities to a new director-general for prison services without any consultation with the House, and presumably without any consultation with you, Madam Speaker. In that way, a serious erosion is taking place of the accountability by the House for Government administration, because, at the end of the day, the Government will still have responsibility for those executive agencies. The Minister is shifting responsibility to the executive agency by allowing questions to be answered in this way.
I ask you to examine the matter, because it is a creeping erosion of accountability and a serious removal of powers from hon. Members, especially those on the Back Benches.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a long point of order and has not, I regret, done me the courtesy of letting me see the letter. I have not seen the letter. If he sends it to my office, I shall look at it.

Mr. Cryer: Certainly, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have made yourself clear, following the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). The Secretary of State, who has not remained for further points of order, must be aware that it is entirely unacceptable for him to make major announcements on the Forestry Commission by way of a pointed question to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Monklands (Mr. Knox) yesterday and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) today.
With your normal sensitivities, Madam Speaker, you will know that the Scottish prison officers, among others, are concerned about Government policy and that the Government should simply leave a paper in the Vote Office at 3.30 and tell the House nothing whatever. That is an abuse of the House and of the Chair, and you have our support on that.

Madam Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is now moving into matters of policy, over which I have no authority. As he said, I have made myself clear on this issue not only today but on numerous occasions in the past two weeks.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will remember that two days after the previous Scottish questions, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) raised a point of order on a Friday morning complaining that one of our Ministers had challenged him on all sorts of funny goings on in Monklands council. Can you confirm that, following today's Scottish questions, he will not be able to do that, because he had every opportunity—

Madam Speaker: Order. I always knew that points of order were getting out of hand, but this is certainly going over the top.

Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the reported


deaths and chaos on the humanitarian convoys out of Srebrenica? The mayhem which is apparent again today clearly demonstrates two urgent requirements: first, the United Nations must arrange a regular relief lifeline to not only Srebrenica but Gorazde and other enclaves—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue that matter across the Floor of the House. He has rightly asked me a direct question. I must answer him: no, I have not been informed today that a Minister wishes to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been receiving letters from my constituents in which they complain about a letter which they have received as a result of a direct mail shot from the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has sent thousands of letters to my constituents, in which he has asked them to write to him. I agree, of course, that they can write to Conservative central office, but I am concerned that they will be writing to the Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, where civil servants will be employed to respond to them. How can I raise the matter in the House, Madam Speaker? The letters are an abuse of my right to represent my constituency.

Madam Speaker: We shall soon begin a number of Adjournment debates. The hon. Member might try to raise the matter in one of those debates.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

OPEN SKIES

That the draft Treaty on Open Skies (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Social Security (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 315) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instrument, &c.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND)

That the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 522) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the National Health Service (Dental Services) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 523) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 524) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

That the Education (Grant-maintained Schools) (Finance) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 568) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Education (Grant-maintained Schools) (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 843) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

That the National Health Service (Determination of Regions) Amendment Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 571) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the National Health Service (District Health Authorities) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 572) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the National Health Service (Determination of Districts) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 574) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope].

Question agreed to.

Second Chamber (Reform)

Mr. Peter Hain: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a Second Chamber elected on the basis of selections from regional party lists of candidates in proportion to the votes cast for the House of Commons.
The Bill is designed to replace the other place with a democratically elected second Chamber by means of a regional list system of proportional representation.
We have grown comfortably accustomed to the ermine-edged quirks of the other place. They are all good chaps: indeed, mostly they are chaps. Whether out of deference to tradition or sheer apathy, there has been no will to reform the other place. Yet it is an anachronism. It is a rather fey survivor from the pre-democracy days; it is a constitutional dinosaur. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) wryly said:
The House of Lords is the British Outer Mongolia for retired politicians.
I would go further and suggest that it is proof positive of life after death.
The House of Lords is unique, because no other parliamentary democracy has such an arrangement. No other parliamentary democracy rewards individuals with a seat at the centre of power on the basis of who their great-great-great-great-grandparents were. There are 759 such hereditary Peers, discreetly labelled Peers by Succession, of whom only 17 are women. For the past 35 years, 388 life peerages—only 60 of whom have been women—have been created. They owe their position to prime ministerial patronage rather than to democratic election. If we add 26 archbishops and bishops, 16 hereditary Peers of First Creation and 19 Life Peers under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, the numerical power of the other place is a staggering 1,208, which is almost double that of this place.
Not surprisingly, most Peers are Conservative. The latest figures show that 478 take the Tory Whip. There are 116 Labour Peers, 59 Liberal Peers and 272 Peers who are Cross-Benchers. Fewer than half of them bother to turn up. Although many are hard-working, the truly powerful are the backwoodsmen who sit idly at home on their huge estates, awaiting the clarion call of the Tory Whips to summon them to overturn the will of the working Peers. When crucial votes take place, like fungi in the dark, the number of Peers mushrooms to save the skin of successive Tory Governments.
This practice has not diminished with the creation of life peerages, as votes in the other place in the 1960s on what was the London Government Bill and on the sanctions order that applied to what was then Southern Rhodesia demonstrated. In addition, the decision of the other place to abolish the Greater London council bears testimony to that. The poll tax is another example. That constitutional monstrosity passed through Parliament with the help of the other place. It is perhaps appropriate that we are celebrating its abolition today.
What a shambles and an insult to the image of democratic government everywhere. Successive Tory Governments—the current one are no exception—have used the House of Lords in the same way as a drunk uses a lamp post—for support rather than 11lumination.
I would not be too fussed if individuals still claimed the title of Lord if they had been awarded or had inherited peerages. That title, however, should not entitle them to a vote at the centre of power. Total abolition is not the answer. There is a need for a second chamber to scrutinise legislation and, more and more importantly, to act as a constitutional check. That does not happen now. The last time the Lords made a fuss and used their power of delay was on the War Crimes Bill in May 1991. They threw it out by 207 votes to 74. The Government merely re-introduced the Bill, using their powers under the Parliament Act 1911.
Although they pay lip service to tradition, the Conservatives regard the Lords as irrelevant—not so much Mr. Balfour's poodle, more Mr. Major's mutt. So we need an elected second chamber. It should be similar to senates in other mature democracies. I think of Australia and America, for example. It should be a check and balance on the excesses of the Executive, but one which does not duplicate—or, more importantly, challenge—the responsibilities of the Commons. It could also draw on the experience of Germany's second chamber, the Bundesrat, which provides a direct regional input from the regional governments, the Landers.
The Lords should be replaced with a new second chamber, or senate, elected from party lists according to the size of the regional vote which each party polled at a general election. It would be simple. The same vote given to a parliamentary candidate locally would be allocated to that party in a regional pool. The percentage of that pool received by each party would determine each party's allocation of second chamber members from the relevant region.
Some may argue, "If this is such a good idea, why not advocate it for the House of Commons, too?" The answer is simple. The objection to the list principle for the House of Commons is that it would break irrevocably the link between the Member of Parliament and his or her local constituency, so undermining democratic accountability. That valid objection does not apply to members of the second Chamber, because they do not have any constituency duties or local representative responsibilities.
I believe that such a list system would not only give a voice to the regions of Britain, but allow action to secure fair representation for women and ethnic minorities. For example, each party could select its regional lists for the second chamber by democratic vote of either regional memberships or regional conferences. It could build in quotas, thus satisfying legitimate claims for equal representation within the party in a way that cannot be enforced, while retaining the local autonomy which is such an important tradition for the selection of Members of Parliament.
The result would be to meet in full aspirations for proportional representation in at least one half of Parliament. A new second chamber could also genuinely claim legitimacy as a constitutional check because it would represent literally all sections of political opinion. By such an approach, we could retain the advantages of single-member seats in the House of Commons—with or without electoral reform here—and the prospect of being able to form a single-party Government, together with a reform of the second Chamber which satisfied the demand for fairer representation.
A reformed second Chamber could have about 400 votes. On the basis of the distribution of votes in the last general election, there would be about 170 Conservatives,
140 Labour, 70 Liberals and 20 others. In Wales, for example, Labour would have 12 seats, the Tories would have six, the Liberals would have three and Plaid Cymru would have two.
Radical reform is vital because, despite this being the mother of Parliaments, British democracy is completely discredited. [Interruption.] Oh yes, it is. Unelected peers reflect an elitist state, which is one of the most unaccountable and secretive in the democratic world. It wields power by a combination of the royal prerogative, massive patronage and centralisation, with only a nod towards democracy.
One thing is certain: the demand for democratic reform will not go away. The question for the House is not whether the Lords will be reformed and replaced, but when. The House should cease acting like Canute holding back the tide of history, and replace its ossified appendage by supporting the Bill.

Mr. Tony Marlow: What a load of drivel, Madam Speaker. There were three things wrong with the hon. Gentleman's speech and nothing right with it. First, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) wants to enhance the power and prestige of the Liberal party—a political party which in Britain gives more commitment and importance to Brussels, Europe and European institutions than to the House and the country. The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce proportional representation by the list system. That is even after the debates that we have had in the past few days about the Maastricht treaty—the most important thing to happen to Britain for more than 25 years. A few of us, with the backing of our associations and the confidence to say and do what we believe is right for Britain, are able to represent the people of our constituencies and the country in this House because there is not a list system. If there were, would we not all be creatures of the party bureaucracy, the party hierarchy, central office and Walworth road? Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants?
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He wants to do away with, destroy or do something rotten with the other place. The House of Lords is a very interesting institution—it allows a second bite at the cherry; it allows us a longer period for scrutiny of legislation; it allows us to look at things in better ways.
The House of Lords is constituted in a way that many hon. Members would not support. It is difficult to support the constitution of the House of Lords, but certainly a House of Lords there should be—and I shall explain why. There is one reason above all others. We are faced with the degradation, the dispersal and the finalisation of the United Kingdom as we are sucked into a European federation. We have been told that the matter has been put before the people of this country. When was it put before them? Was it at the last general election, when the Front Benches were vying with each other in their Euro-fanaticism? Is that when the British people had the opportunity to debate and discuss the issue?
Yes, we can debate and discuss the matter here. We have tabled an amendment that would provide the British people with the opportunity to take a view and to vote on this monstrosity. But what about the Whips and the Labour Front Bench? We know what will happen. There

is only one hope for us, and it is that the House of Lords will give us the referendum that this House will deny us. God save the House of Lords. I hope that it has the guts to do its popular and constitutional duty.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can hear only one voice in opposition.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 77.

Division No. 225]
[3.51 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Alton, David
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Ashton, Joe
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)


Barnes, Harry
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Kirkwood, Archy


Boyes, Roland
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bradley, Keith
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Macdonald, Calum


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
McKelvey, William


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maclennan, Robert


Cann, Jamie
McMaster, Gordon


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Marek, Dr John


Clapham, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Martlew, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Connarty, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Corbett, Robin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cox, Tom
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Pickthall, Colin


Denham, John
Pope, Greg


Dixon, Don
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Radice, Giles


Dowd, Jim
Raynsford, Nick


Eagle, Ms Angela
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Etherington, Bill
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fisher, Mark
Soley, Clive


Flynn, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Steinberg, Gerry


Fyfe, Maria
Stevenson, George


Galloway, George
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Garrett, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Graham, Thomas
Tyler, Paul


Gunnell, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Hain, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hall, Mike



Hanson, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hardy, Peter
Mr. Mike Watson and


Harvey, Nick
Mr. John McAllion.


Hill, Keith (Streatham)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alexander, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Ancram, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Peter


Boyce, Jimmy
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hood, Jimmy


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)






Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Khabra, Piara S.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Sproat, Iain


Madden, Max
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mahon, Alice
Waller, Gary


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Watts, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Whittingdale, John


Mullin, Chris
Winnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholls, Patrick



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Richard
Mr. Nicholas Winterton and


Pawsey, James
Mr. Tony Marlow.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Roger Berry, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. John Denham, Mr. Paul Flynn, Dr. Kim Howells, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Ms Clare Short and Mr. Mike Watson.

SECOND CHAMBER (REFORM)

Mr. Peter Hain accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a Second Chamber elected on the basis of selections from regional party lists of candidates in proportion to the votes cast for the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 April, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

Legal Aid

[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee on Legal Aid: The Lord Chancellor's Proposals, House of Commons Paper No. 517 of Session 1992–93, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee on 23rd March, together with Memoranda, to be published in House of Commons Paper No. 574 of Session 1992–93.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move:
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Amemdment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11 th March, be approved.
That the draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 565), dated 9th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 788), dated 17th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 789), dated 17th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 790), dated 17th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.
We are considering a number of regulations on legal aid —five sets subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and relating to Scotland, and four sets relating to England and Wales, which are subject to the negative resolution procedure and which have been prayed against by the Opposition. I am glad to be able to put the Government's case in support of these resolutions.
Legal aid is the means whereby people on low incomes may be helped to have access to the justice system. I believe that over the years it has been successful in that aim and indeed that our system of legal aid in Great Britain is undoubtedly one of the most generous in the world and the envy of many other countries, including several of our European neighbours.
Over the years, successive Governments have sought to ensure that the system of legal aid represents a level playing field as between Scotland and England and Wales. That, of course, means that there have always been significant differences between the detailed systems in the two countries, since their legal systems are very different. The changes we are bringing forward in the regulations


seek to continue to implement that principle. They are not identical as between England and Wales and Scotland, but they represent the realisation of a broad common policy. I therefore propose to deal first with the position in Scotland before going on to describe the proposed regulations for England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, will deal with the English position in more detail on winding up.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have hardly started, but I shall give way.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. Does not he recognise that it is monstrous to conflate two debates about two wholly different legal systems and to spend less than three hours debating the entirely different circumstances of Scotland and England and Wales? This is the first step that has been taken since the Government's published papers on constitutional reform, which shows how little has changed under the Conservative party.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The broad principles are the same throughout Britain and, as a United Kingdom Parliament, we are entitled to consider these issues. The basic problem is that the figures have escalated out of all proportion.
On 19 April 1989, I revealed that £54 million was spent on legal aid in Scotland in 1988. With his characteristic directness, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Da!yell) said that that was
a hell of a lot of money".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] The hon. Member for Linlithgow said that. Of course, it is far more today. In 1991–92, the figure was £86 million and it is about to be £104 million in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will appreciate this point. Nye Bevan said that the language of priorities is the religion of socialism. With greatly increasing expenditure on one service, what is at stake is whether that service should have higher priority than health, education, social work, housing and other essential services. The figures had escalated so much in all parts of Britain that something had to be done. That has been accepted.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Under-Secretary tell us by what standard one measures the proportionality? Is he saying that people have become greedy for legal aid, or does he accept that there is more reason for people to seek legal aid nowadays?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I am not saying either of those things. I shall give the hon. and learned Gentleman the figures. He will be interested to know that the cost in England and Wales was less than £100 million in 1979, but that, for the year ending today, the figure will be £1,100 million. If expenditure continues to rise, the figure will be nearly £2,000 million by the mid–1990s, so there is a need to contain the large and rapid growth in expenditure. However, I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that, under the Government plans, there is no question of legal aid being cut.
I confirm that expenditure in England and Wales will rise by 10 per cent. in each of the next three years, to a total of £1,528 million for 1995–96. Over the same period, we expect the number of acts of assistance in grants of legal aid on advice and assistance to rise from just over 3 million in the current year to about 4 million—an increase of almost 30 per cent.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: rose—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop my argument? Legal aid—

Sir John Wheeler: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Sir John Wheeler: The figures that my hon. Friend has just given the House are astonishing. With public sector borrowing at £50 billion a year, it is not tolerable to consider the level of expenditure in the way that he has described. Will he assure the House that there will be a proper system of accountability covering the projected increases to which he alluded, to ensure that the taxpayers' money is properly and fairly used?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If one takes all the circumstances into account, and in view of the rises in expenditure that will take place, the approach adopted by the Lord Chancellor is certainly not ungenerous.
Legal aid, of course, involved the expenditure of large amounts of taxpayers' funds. Over the past few years, and especially over the past year or so, legal aid expenditure in Scotland rose dramatically. Indeed, it has almost doubled over the past five years. Expenditure on legal aid from public funds was £49 million in Scotland in the year ending 31 March 1988. It rose to £83 million in 1992 and will reach £104 million in the financial year that ends today.
The first two Scots sets of regulations before the House represent a major element in the response to that rise in expenditure.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: rose—

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop this point?
The Government have a general responsibility to ensure the best use of taxpayers' funds and to set spending priorities accordingly. It is in that context that we have had to consider carefully, as any responsible Government would have to, the recent rises in expenditure on legal aid.
I shall now describe the provisions contained in each of the sets of regulations in a little more detail.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there a relationship between unemployment and the sums in the legal aid budget to which the Minister has referred?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is especially relevant that the most vulnerable should be assisted. I accept that principle, and people on income support levels of income will certainly continue to receive free civil legal aid, advice


and assistance. Eligibility will continue to be based on an individual's disposable income—that is, his gross income less various allowances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the decision to retain a band of contributory advice and assistance to ensure that all people on modest incomes will continue to have access to legal aid in Scotland.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: rose—

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop what I have to say about some of the regulations first? The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will be able to comment in a moment. I am well aware that he has served on the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and has considerable experience in the matter; I shall give way to him in due course.
The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 adjust the threshold of a person's disposable income below which free civil legal aid is available. They propose that the threshold should be set at £2,293 with effect from 12 April 1993, when the annual adjustments in income support levels under the social security system come into effect. The upper limit will remain unchanged at £6,800—it is higher in personal injury cases, at £7,500—and the maximum contribution that a person between the lower and upper limits will be asked to make towards the cost of his legal aid bill will be raised from one quarter to one third of his disposable income above the lower threshold.
The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 similarly change the threshold—this time of weekly disposable income—above which a person is required to pay a contribution for legal advice and assistance. The new disposable income level will be £61 per week. The regulations also describe the scale of contributions to be paid where weekly disposable income exceeds £61 but does not exceed a slightly increased upper disposable income limit of £147. The level of contribution will range from £7 to £86.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister is explaining the regulations in the context of an argument about priorities. What greater priority is there than that a person should have access to the courts of this country, irrespective of his or her means? Is the Minister not aware that, before a person is admitted to legal aid, he must establish probable cause and that it is in the interests of justice that legal aid be awarded to him? If the Minister is concerned about those on income support, does he not realise that these proposals will bite most strongly for those who fall just outside the very limits that he has described? It is these people to whom access to the courts will be denied.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member could perfectly well advance that argument to those who fall just outside the limits now. Wherever you have a cut-off point, there will be resentment among those who fall just outside it. In relation to Scotland, as the Secretary of State made clear a few minutes ago, only 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of those receiving civil legal aid and advice and assistance now will have no entitlement in future. That affects only some 7,500 people.

Mr. John McFall: One hundred thousand.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is our best estimate. It is certainly not 100,000, which is a ludicrous exaggeration.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend think it relevant in this context that while the cost of legal aid has doubled since 1988–89 in England, by no means have the clients seeking legal aid doubled? The figure is very much smaller than the doubling which we have experienced.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We anticipate that the rise will be from over 3 million in the current year to about 4 million. What has come through is that more and more people are applying for legal aid and for their entitlement, and that the figures of those receiving legal aid will increase by the mid–1990s.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us in the House who are not legally qualified have noticed in the past couple of years a growing number of constituents who come to us seeking legal advice because the legal profession has, for certain reasons, including difficulties with legal aid, been unable to assist them? Is he therefore aware that some of us are concerned that this tendency will increase as a result of these measures, and that a number of people, particularly those seeking redress over personal injury, may be unable to seek justice under these arrangements? What proposals has he for reviewing the consequences of the motions that he is asking us to vote on tonight?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I said earlier that the upper limit for somebody who has suffered personal injury is £7,500, which is higher. The effect on eligibility is, as I said, in the region of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. It may be that my hon. Friend will be seeing a few more constituents. I am sure that, with his ability, he will be able to give them the same assistance that he has given to all his other constituents.
First, all the figures relate to a person's disposable income—that is, his income after allowance has been made for a number of necessary outgoings, such as expenditure on dependants, housing costs, the costs of travel to work and other expenses associated with employment, and a number of others. The calculation will vary according to the circumstances of each individual applicant. An applicant with a disposable income towards the upper end of the scale giving rise to eligibility could well have a gross income of about £15,000 or even more. The levels of eligibility, therefore, continue to represent generous provision. We estimate that 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. of households in Scotland will remain eligible for legal aid under the new proposals.
Secondly, the contributions that are payable are in all cases maximum contributions. We have seen some newspaper comment recently which seems to imply that the maximum contribution levels are in some sense an entrance fee for access to the system of civil justice. That is certainly not the case. As at present, no legally aided person will be required to pay more than the case actually costs. On the other hand, however high the costs of an individual case rise, no one will be required to pay more than the maximum contribution.
Thirdly, our approach has not been to remove significant numbers of people from eligibility for legal aid altogether. We calculate that of the almost 300,000 people in Scotland who have received grants of civil legal aid and/or advice and assistance in 1992–93, only 7,500–2 per cent. to 3 per cent.—would not be eligible under the current proposals.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I know that my hon. and learned Friend has strong views, so I shall give way to him in a second.
The effect of the proposals is that some people who previously made no contribution towards the costs of their case will have to make a contribution, generally a very small one, and that the level of contribution of those who already contribute will rise. That is a fair and even-handed approach.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am most obliged to my hon. and yet to be learned Friend, who has frequently been my junior and who knows my views. There has always been a terrible gap in legal aid by which people were deprived of the ability to go to law. The proposals increase that gap. My main complaint is as follows. We have a Scottish Lord Chancellor who is the principal Law Officer in England. Why should we take the view that we must imitate his idocies in England when the cost of legal aid in Scotland has not increased, but decreased? If one divides the money that is being spent by the number of people seeking redress, one finds that the figure has gone infinitely down. Can my hon. Friend answer my question?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can, indeed. I have been junior counsel to my hon. and learned Friend and to the Lord Chancellor, as has the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). My hon. and learned Friend has also worked under the Lord Chancellor. I believe that his judgment in this matter is sound. Expenditure on legal aid has doubled in Scotland since 1987–88 and even under the Government's proposals it is forecast to rise to 40 per cent. above the original planned figures for 1992–93 by the mid-1990s. The number of people helped has been rising, and will continue to rise to an estimated total of 425,000 or more in 1995–96.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Has the Minister made these proposals in conjunction with other Government proposals that involve the trade unions? As the Minister knows, the trade unions have an excellent reputation for taking up, for example, industrial injury cases. At the same time that the Government are introducing these proposals, they are requiring the trade unions to spend more on compulsory ballots because they propose to reduce the amount available for the ballots—which they are imposing.
Inevitably, this means that trade unions, which have been excellent self-help organisations, will not be able to spend so much money on legal representation of their members—a field in which they have an unquestionably excellent record. Thus, trade union members, as well as benefiting less from legal aid, will receive less assistance from their organisations. They will be caught on a fork of deprivation when it comes to obtaining justice in civil injury cases.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who has just come into the Chamber, will have heard his remarks. My understanding is that trade unions were against accepting funds when they were offered. Perhaps these matters can be followed up with the Department of Employment, as they relate primarily to employment.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on their proposals generally. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is always right to disallow the capital value of a principal residence in calculating entitlement to legal aid? In my constituency, there is a widower who has a very low income but owns a house worth £300,000. That person, having obtained legal aid on the basis of low income, was able to harass a neighbour without mercy. As the neighbour—an engineer with a wife and three children to support—was in receipt of the income of a young professional man, he was unable to obtain legal aid for a dispute about a tree on the border between the sites. That is not a level playing field. Surely it is not right that such things should be allowed to happen.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to examine the circumstances of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I hope that it will be possible, in the winding-up speech, to provide a full response.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have given way to many Scotsmen, and I am always glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, I should like to make a little progress first.
The remaining three sets of regulations give effect to the commitment given by the Government during the recent passage of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1993 to extend the scheme of assistance by way of representation to cover the preparation and presentation of a petition by a debtor for the sequestration of his or her estate. The regulations will allow an eligible debtor to obtain the help of a solicitor in completing and submitting the petition forms required by the court. If necessary, the solicitor can also appear in court, on behalf of the debtor, at any hearing relating to the petition.
This assistance is in addition to, and separate from, any preliminary advice that the solicitor may have provided, under the advice and assistance scheme, on the options available to the debtor. The Government's commitment to extend the scheme of assistance by way of representation was welcomed by the Opposition at the time of the passage of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act. I hope that that support will continue in respect of the regulations that are before us today.
Before turning to the four sets of regulations relating to England and Wales, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

Mr. Graham: I have worked with many people who, because of the level of the income, were prevented from going to law. In this regard, I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). At the moment, I am dealing with a case involving folk in this situation. Many organisations in Scotland are saying clearly that the


Minister is wildly wrong and that if these proposals are accepted there will be great injustice and unfairness in Scotland.
The Minister has given a figure of 7,500 people. In my view, that is a doubtful number. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, if it proves to be wrong, he will instantly take steps to review the legislation? Scottish people who cannot afford legal representation should be provided with it. Let the Minister give us an assurance that everybody in Scotland will be entitled to representation in the courts.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I stand strongly by the figures that I have already given to the House. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know about the circumstances of the case in his constituency, I will ensure that it is examined very carefully.
The Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 relating to England and Wales set the lower limit of disposable income, below which legal aid is available without a contribution, at the annual equivalent of the income support personal allowance for a single person aged 25 and over. In 1993–94, that will be £2,293.
The regulations also align allowances for dependants which are made in calculating disposal income for legal aid purposes with income support allowances. They increase the fraction of disposable income payable by way of contribution from one quarter of disposal income in excess of free limit to one third and provide that contributions continue for the life of the case—that is, for as long as the legal aid certificate is in force. They amend the regulations covering assessments and further assessments of means so that they are consistent with the new financial conditions; and, finally, they adjust the table of additional capital disregards for pensioners in line with the new financial limits.
The Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 provide that an area director of the Legal Aid Board may waive payment of contribution where it appears that the costs of the proceedings will not be more than contributions which have been paid. The regulations also amend the payment-on-account scheme to align the periods after which payments may be made to barristers with those applicable to solicitors.
The Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 make the same changes in respect—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to barristers. There are no barristers in Scotland: they are called advocates.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that matters of substance and correctness or otherwise are not matters for the Chair.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have always said that my hon. and learned Friend is a brilliant man, but not always necessarily correct. I am referring to England, where the term "barristers" is normally used.
The Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 align the free limit with the single adult income support rate, that is £44

a week. They also align dependants' allowances with income support allowances, raise the fraction of disposable income payable as contribution from one quarter to one third and provide for contributions to be paid for so long as the legal aid is in force.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993 set the qualifying limit of disposable income for advice and assistance at £61 for 1993–94. They provide that assistance by way of representation shall be available to applicants with disposable incomes of between £61 and £147 a week, and that applicants with income between those two limits shall pay contributions for the life of the case of one third of the difference between actual disposable income and the lower limit of £61.
It may assist the House if I say a word about the differences between our proposals for Scotland and for England and Wales. In both cases, the changes are designed to address the very considerable increase in the cost of legal aid on both sides of the border. Where there are differences, they reflect differences in the legal systems and in legal aid practice.
In Scotland, we announced on 17 February that we had decided to retain a band of contributory advice and assistance for people whose weekly disposable income lies between £61 and £147. That reflects the greater reliance placed on the advice and assistance scheme in Scotland. On the civil side, many applicants who require to establish the probable cause in law of their proposed action are helped through the advice and assistance scheme, whereas in England limited grants of full civil legal aid are available for that purpose.
On the criminal side, defendants in Scotland who plead guilty are eligible for assistance by way of representation which is part of the advice and assistance scheme, whereas in England that is dealt with through full criminal legal aid. On the question of eligibility for criminal legal aid, the English arrangements for the assessment of income of applicants are broadly similar to those which apply to civil legal aid.

Mr. Gary Waller: Will the Minister accept that, just as in Scotland, there are great concerns among many people lest we are again hitting people who are just outside the income support level? As in many other areas of life, if one qualifies for income support, one will probably be all right, whereas, if one is just a little outside, one will probably be in trouble or will have much greater difficulty in getting access to justice.
As my hon. Friend said, the amounts involved have escalated. Even so, will he look again at the propositions that have been put forward by the Bar Council and the Law Society to save money, to see whether in future they might provide a better way forward than today's proposals?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Whatever benefit or legal aid system we have, there will be huge objections, wherever the cut-off point is set, from those who are just omitted. That has always been, and always will be, the case. The system will be reviewed in due course, but I cannot hold out any hope in respect of the Law Society's recommendations. In relation to the Law Society of Scotland, I do not understand the basis of its figures. Under the new system, the maximum contribution for


ordinary cases will be £1,502. I do not understand where the Law Society can possibly have got the idea that contributions could be higher than that.
In England, the new regulations will provide for contributions to civil legal aid to continue for the life of the case, rather than being restricted to a contribution based on one year's income, as in Scotland. The equivalent change in Scotland would require amendment to primary legislation. We shall consider in due course whether any further action should be taken on that in the light of experience of the changes in England.
Working within the priorities set for public expenditure, we have set out our aims for legal aid for significant growth and we have targeted the available funds to where we believe they are most needed. We have a legal aid system of which we can rightly be extremely proud. I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. John McFall: I begin by answering the question, which the Minister failed to address, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I refer to the proceedings of last week's Scottish Select Committee on legal aid eligibility changes, in the report of which Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the Minister of State, is reported as saying:
In a recession and when there is greater unemployment, one would expect more people to be eligible for legal aid, and certainly more financial disputes and difficulties at home.
That answers the question eloquently.
In the previous legal aid debate I referred to the last Conservative manifesto, which contained the statement:
We are committed to enabling people of limited means to have access to justice.
It is clear in the light of the regulations for England and Wales that that manifesto as a guide to what is likely to happen is somewhat less reliable than Old Moore's Almanac. What happened in April 1992 no longer applies because the recession is longer and deeper.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an increase of 10 per cent. Over the next three years is insufficient? If so, will he say what increase the Labour party would recommend?

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman should accept that the Conservative manifesto, written in haste in April. was mendacious: it has no validity now. It is clear that people will be taken out of legal aid as a result of the regulations. If they are unamended, that manifesto statement, in its perfidiousness, will rank alongside the Prime Minister's outburst last March when he said that he had no plans to extend the scope of VAT. Just the poor and those on moderate incomes will be left to shiver in the cold in the coming winters, so potentially up to 14 million people in the United Kingdom will be left out of access to the courts. The core issue is eligibility of the public to gain access to the law. Justice is not optional in a society based on the rule of law.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is sometimes suggested that civil legal aid has gone up. It has not gone up in Scotland in real terms; it has gone down. We will leave aside criminal legal aid because that may raise another argument. Perhaps I should declare an interest in both. The amount of money cannot be limited because it is impossible to know how many people will fall over a paving stone, or will hit their heads, or will be hit on the

head, or what will happen. Therefore, we cannot say that legal aid will go up or down, and we cannot limit it; we cannot say that we are going to brush one tooth.

Mr. McFall: I thank the hon. and learned Member. I refer to his statement last week in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. At paragraph 97 he said:
You cannot say to people that it is fair you will just give them one loaf of bread and if 3 million people want to eat they only get a crumb each and if 2 million people want to eat they get a crust. That seems to me the attitude to the matter. I do not understand that legal aid is other than a public service which must be given to those who ask for it and require it.
That was said eloquently, and my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with it.

Mr. Phil Gallie: rose—

Mr. McFall: I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman later; perhaps I will let him intervene then.
The genesis of the regulations, as in England and Wales, lies in the autumn statement. To satisfy the Treasury, at the Law Society national conference in Birmingham in October, the Lord Chancellor said:
The overall cost of legal aid must be made more affordable. It must be better targeted towards those areas of work where it provides the most cost-effective service.
The buzz word "targeting" is the Government's way of saying there will be cuts. And sure enough, four days after the Lord Chancellor announced his cuts in the other place, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), in a written answer on 16 November, told the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that he would reduce the free income limit for eligibility from £3,060 per annum to the equivalent income support level of £2,213 per annum. In doing so, he admitted that it was in line with the proposals for England and Wales announced recently by the Lord Chancellor.
However, the system in Scotland is entirely different from the system in England. Scots law has Roman law roots, a distinct jurisprudence, its own statute and case law, a separate court system and a separate system for administering legal aid.
The Government have done no consultation and no research. No one outside Whitehall and St. Andrew's house knew until November what was happening. Indeed, the president of the Law Society, in his appearance before the Scottish Affairs Select Committee last week, made that very point. It all goes back to the autumn statement, when it was said that the recession was longer and deeper than expected.
I shall concentrate on Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) will deal with England and Wales. The Government's attack on legal aid in Scotland has been disproportionate from the beginning. Criminal legal aid takes 70 per cent. of the budget in Scotland. Yet that is not being touched, and the Government have undertaken no investigation so far into that. I am aware that the president and vice-president of the Law Society have been invited to meet Ministers next week at St. Andrew's house on this subject. But that is a case of bolting the stable door after the horses have gone. As I said, 70 per cent. of budget is not being touched. Since then, the Minister has done a U-turn in restoring advice and assistance in Scotland. I submit that the Government were humiliated into that by public and political opposition in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Department is carrying out a review of criminal legal aid in Scotland?

Mr. McFall: I stated that the Department is undertaking a review, but it is far too late. The regulations will come into effect tomorrow and up to 250,000 people may be affected. If the Minister is sincere about the investigation, he should have a moratorium on the cuts.
Civil legal aid will have to bear the brunt of the cuts. Why? The Government tell us that 4,000 more people have applied for civil aid until March of this year and that they must therefore save £2 million to £3 million. Lord Fraser said that. Is that justified, and what will the consequences be? In his written reply to the hon. Member for Ayr, the Minister said that the legal aid budget had doubled. Let us make it clear that civil legal aid has not doubled. If we take the figures for the past five years, we find that civil legal aid has fluctuated from a baseline of approximately £15·5 million, with a variance of approximately £1 million. Over that five-year period it has increased by less than £900,000 and has decreased in real terms by 20 per cent. There is no justification, therefore, for cutting back.
I asked the House of Commons Library to get me the statistics for the past 10 years. In five of those years, civil payments exceeded the forecast for this year and the cost per case exceeded the £873 projected for each case this year. The proposed figure for this year is therefore an aberration, for various reasons which were adequately explained by the Law Society in its submission to the Select Committee last week.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned criminal legal aid. As I would expect of a man of perspicacity, he has clearly read the proceedings of the Select Committee. I made a number of suggestions as to how the criminal system could be altered to save vast amounts of money. I have made those suggestions frequently. I trust that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will join us in doing that because there is a massive waste of money, time and resources.

Mr. McFall: I agree with the hon. and learned Member. From memory, I think that he told Lord Fraser that many defence lawyers asked clients to plead not guilty, and that that was one area where improvements could be made. The noble Lord decided not to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman down that path. Let us hope that he decides to do so and that we get the savings that the hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman is making a most perceptive contribution to a debate on home affairs in Scotland. Does he agree that the cost of legal aid must be related directly to the cost of litigation? If we had a full-scale, wide-ranging review of the civil legal system in Scotland to reduce the costs of litigation, we would immediately bring about circumstances in which we could reduce the cost of legal aid as well.

Mr. McFall: I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. As I said earlier, no mention was made of the situation prior to November so there could be no contributions or advice given to the Scottish Office. There was no justification for that.
It is tempting to see legal aid as a lawyer's issue. As a non-lawyer, that does not concern me. Undoubtedly, there are fat-cat lawyers who make some money, not on legal aid

but maybe elsewhere. Certainly, lawyers do not suffer from collective shyness, so they can make their own case on that. I am here to talk on behalf of people other than lawyers.

Mr. Barry Porter: I must declare an interest. Some years ago, I made a modest—indeed, humble—living as a solicitor, part of which came from the legal aid fund. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Perhaps he would care to address this point: some members of the profession, either solicitors or barristers, have milked the system. I shall give an example. In the past, a simple shoplifting case was dealt with by taking instructions from a client and doing the trial, which would be two hearings at the most. One now gets one, two, three or four hearings or remands, and then perhaps one goes to the Crown court. That is the reality. Some lawyers take advantage of the system and have brought this on themselves.

Mr. McFall: I agree that some lawyers take advantage. It is for Parliament to ensure that that system does not prevail in the future.
Why am I arguing at the Dispatch Box? I am here to argue on behalf of the potentially 250,000 Scots who will be affected by the Government's proposals. Who are they? Some would be tempted to say that they are not the very poor, but those who are slightly above the income support level or on moderate incomes.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Ayr has left the Chamber. Perhaps he does not care what he says today, but I care about what he said last week and yesterday. Last week at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the hon. Gentleman said rather adequately, but perhaps mistakenly from his viewpoint:
I suggest that at present there are many, many people who just cannot afford civil legal aid—people on what you would describe as moderate means and reasonably well off, as seen by some in the community, but people who just cannot afford to go to law on civil matters.
We are here to argue on behalf of those people today. Who are they? The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) says women, and I agree.
Last year, 23,000 people in Scotland received legal aid. Almost 19,000 were family law cases. The proposed changes will hit women and children the hardest. Those affected will include victims of domestic violence, the child caught between angry parents, the person trapped in an abusive relationship, the childless couple who want to adopt and the child abused by an estranged parent. Those people will be involved. Such cases are often emergencies which need immediate court action. Almost all such cases are started by women who have part-time or low-paid employment. The employment statistics published yesterday graphically describe that 22 per cent. of the population work part time and many more than 22 per cent. are low paid.
The Government talk about eligibility and affordability. I would contend that they are two different things. Anyone can book into the Savoy but not everyone can pay for it. That is the difference between eligibility and affordability. The poor and the needy are not the same: the need is greatest for those on moderate incomes and the consequences for them are greater.
Would it not be ironic that if the cuts go through it will be easier for a man to get criminal legal aid to defend a charge of wife or child assault than for a woman to get civil


legal aid to secure the safety of herself and her children in her home? That is iniquitous, but it is the situation that we shall have.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I expect that my hon. Friend has read the report on domestic violence of the Select Committee on Home Affairs which, with a Conservative majority, said:
In the case of domestic violence, we have no doubt that the new restriction on legal aid will mean that the remedies of the civil courts will effectively be removed for a very large number of victims.
It is a disgrace that when I questioned the Secretary of State for Scotland about the matter on 3 March I was told that the changes would have no effect on the eligibility of that category.

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes my point. Where will women in such situations go? They will go to the local authority for housing. Local authorities already face sharp rises in applications for housing under homelessness legislation. They are already under pressure and stretched. With the increased demand, they are likely to raise the level of proof required by women and others to establish homelessness. Some local authorities insist that women start court proceedings to put the husband out of the home and want affidavits and proof from solicitors.
Where do women go at present? Do they go to the Women's Aid Federation? In Glasgow in 1992, 1,000 women were turned away from the federation. In Scotland in 1992, 22,000 people went to the federation for assistance. The Women's Aid Federation freely admits that it could not adequately cope with that situation. What are the Government doing about it? They are condemning women and children to stay in violent relationships. It would not be over-dramatising to say that someone somewhere may be killed under such pressure—it could be a woman attacking her husband or a husband attacking his wife—because the Government have decided to sit on their hands and have people sitting in their homes with nowhere to go. What will be the effect on children? The growth of children will be stunted. What will be the effect of that situation on children's personalities? The Government have no answer.
Many bodies in Scotland have submitted their views to the Government and they all went unheeded. The Scottish Association for Mental Health contacted me yesterday —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) says that he is not surprised. Is that sympathetic or what we consider pejorative? Is that contempt for the Scottish Association for Mental Health? If it is, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. It was a despicable comment.
The Scottish Association for Mental Health contacted me because it wished its clients and the people involved to be catered for. I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. The association is concerned about the group of people who receive invalidity benefits and who could be badly affected by the changes—people who are unable to work because of mental health problems who could be entitled to invalidity benefit if they have paid the appropriate contributions.
The invalidity benefit ranges from £55·15 for a person over 60 to £65·70 for someone under 40 Under the present rules, older people are exempt from making any contribution for legal costs if their income is below the qualifying limit of £3,060 per annum. However, younger

people who receive the higher level of benefit would have to make a contribution of £89. Under the proposed changes, older people will earn more than the annual qualifying limit of £2,293 per annum and will have to pay £200 towards the cost of a mental health hearing while younger people on invalidity benefit will have to pay £300·85. To people on such an income level, that figure is unthinkable. I must condemn Lord Fraser when he said that £300·85 is a small contribution. In our experience, £300 represents a large, if not impossible, contribution for a person earning slightly more than £65 a week. The stress of having to pay such an amount can be enormous for some people.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McFall: I think that I have given way enough to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
People resort to the courts in extreme circumstances, often when there is no other means of salvaging the wreckage of their lives. They go to the courts when they are treated unfairly and they expect society to help in redressing the balance. In short, they go to seek justice. That is recognised in a letter which I received this week from the Episcopalian Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway. He said that we as Christians have a special duty to be a voice for those who are the least noticed in society. We are concerned about the danger that is posed to the civil rights of disabled and disadvantaged groups, who under these cuts will no longer be eligible for legal aid in civil actions. I suggest that Conservative Members read the reports of the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Scottish Affairs dealing with legal aid. They underline the point made by the bishop.
In short, people are looking for justice. Throughout the ages, every citizen of a civilised society has had the fundamental right to expect help from civil authorities to achieve justice. By their proposals, the Government are excluding a section of society from one of the basic rights of citizenship.
I began by referring to the autumn statement, and I shall finish with the remarks of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman is a confident young Cabinet Minister who deigned to appear on "Newsnight" on 12 November. He said:
Legal aid is not a high priority for this Government." That statement fills us—the Opposition—with despair. More important, it fills with despair millions of people who are begging for justice or for access to the courts to secure justice. The Government's attitude will blight and possibly wreck their lives. That is why we shall vigorously oppose the Government on this issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members have expressed their wish to speak in the debate. I ask that those who catch my eye exercise some self-restraint in relation to the length of their speeches.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: First, I declare an interest as a practising barrister who derives some income from legal aid.
In the autumn statement on 12 November, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor announced that his proposals would curb the rise of legal aid costs. His proposals were greeted with horror. On 3 February they were attacked as
draconian, deplorable and wrong in principle
by the Lord Chief Justice. On 4 February, the Daily Mirror thundered:
Law aid axe puts millions at risk.
The Times, with traditional understatement, stated, "Legal aid plans opposed." On 6 February, The Guardian asserted that the plans
would deprive 7 million of free legal aid and impose increased charges on a further 7 million.
The next day, on Sunday 7 February, The Observer headline read:
No justice for 12 million if Mackay cuts legal aid.
Hundreds of solicitors wrote to hon. Members on both sides of the House. They were reported in the newspapers as saying that 14 million would be excluded from access to legal aid, that justice would be too expensive for all but the rich and the destitute, and that in a criminal trial
you might as well plead guilty because you will not be able to defend your case properly.
They alleged, apparently, that the disabled and the sick would be denied legal aid if their incomes came to over £61 a week.
The House was lobbied by members of the Save Legal Aid campaign, which was supported by about 40 organisations, including citizens advice bureaux, Shelter, the Trades Union Congress, the British Association of Social Workers, Age Concern and the Bar Council. Almost everyone having attacked the controversial proposals, The House Magazine reported that
Lord MacKay of Clashfern must have felt like a heavily impaled dartboard.
As there was clearly public alarm and as the job of the Select Committee on Home Affairs is to scrutinise the work of the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Committee decided to examine the proposals as quickly as it could and to report to the House before this debate. That we speedily did on 9 March, three weeks ago. I hope that hon. Members will now be more fully informed. We took oral evidence—[Interruption.] Opposition Members will be none the wiser, but they will be more fully informed.
The Committee took oral evidence from both branches of the legal profession and from the Lord Chancellor on 24 February. We, the Committee, read written memoranda sent to us by many organisations and individuals. We would have taken more evidence if we had had time to do so.
We concluded that the quantification of the numbers of those who would be deprived of legal aid was subjective, depending on what it took someone who was called upon to make a contribution to decide not to pursue the matter. We concluded, however, that the eligibility cuts would deprive some ordinary people of the access that they now enjoy to the law. It seemed, in practical terms, that as many as 150,000 people would not receive legal aid, including some of the 100,000 who would be cut from the green form scheme. In short, the numbers deprived would be nothing like the 14 million mentioned in the alarmist allegations. I was surprised that the hon. Member for

Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) echoed those allegations. As 14 million would not seek access to the courts, it is absurd to say that 14 million will be deprived of anything.
It was clear also that the sick and the disabled with incomes of more than £61 a week would not suffer because disposable income would be assessed, not gross income stemming from whatever benefits they receive.
We accept that the Lord Chancellor is faced with a legal aid budget that is apparently spiralling out of control. The cost of legal aid has risen from less than £500 million in 1988 to over £1·1 billion in 1992, a rise of 135 per cent. It seems that the budget is likely to increase to £2 billion by 1995–96 if nothing is done. That would be a rise of 68 per cent. in the provision of civil legal aid when the retail prices index has risen by only 27 per cent.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Does my hon. and learned Friend remember paragraph 23 of the report, which states:
The Lord Chancellor emphasised to us that the limits for free and contributory legal aid and advice related to disposable income, a point which some of his critics appear to have overlooked. Disposable income is calculated by allowing costs against gross income. We were told that allowable costs included tax, national insurance, dependants, maintenance payments, rent or mortgage, council tax, some other housing costs, fares to work, subscriptions to unions or professional bodies, pension fund contributions and (on a discretionary basis) the costs of child-minding, repayment of loans for home improvements and school fees."?
Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that disposable income is a much smaller sum than gross income and other forms of net income?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for filling out the details of that which I was skirting.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A couple with two children with an income of £21,000 might well qualify for contributory legal aid when the deductions are taken into account.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for filling out the details even further. As I am trying to keep my speech short, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not go into all the details.
We, the Select Committee, concluded that the cuts were unfortunate. We found that they did not sit easily with the Government's strategy to make the consumer and the citizen generally more aware of his or her rights and more tenacious of them. In our view, the legal aid scheme exists to ensure that ordinary people can have the protection of the law. It gives many people access to the law and underpins justice and the freedom of the individual. It has obviously been a great success. More and more people have been helped by the scheme. The numbers have risen from 3·14 million five years ago to an estimated 4·1 million for 1995, even after the Lord Chancellor's changes.
The Committee looked ahead to the immediate future. My colleagues and I were struck that no one seemed to know in enough detail why the costs were rising so rapidly. We suggested that urgent work needed to be undertaken to find the answers.
We thought it a great pity that the legal profession and the Lord Chancellor's Department had not quite got their acts together. We hoped that out report might help to bang heads together so that both sides might co-operate in undertaking an inquiry into the scope for savings and efficiency in the way in which legal services are delivered


and how the courts operate. Radical changes might be the result. We felt that both sides needed to be prepared to commit themselves to such changes. But both the professions and the Lord Chancellor seem willing to start the process. We welcome that.

Mr. Alex Carlile: While we are talking about civil legal aid, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that virtually every bill for civil legal aid, whether from solicitors or counsel, is scrutinised by an official who is appointed essentially by the Government so that there is far less scope for fraud in the civil legal aid scheme? Does he agree that, in the absence of any evidence of lawyers acting improperly in claiming their fees, the scheme should continue much as before? Does he further agree that there is an enormous amount of room for efficiency savings in the courts? For example, pre-trial reviews are effective in civil cases.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. We did not find any fraud in the legal professions. We probably did not investigate for long enough to discover any. We were looking at what is happening now and what immediately could be done about it.
We felt that although it was too late to do anything about the orders that we are debating today, which are due to come into force on 12 April, if agreed savings were found between the professions and the Lord Chancellor's Department, it might be possible to restore the cuts in eligibility in real terms in the future. We said that the Government should set themselves that goal. If not, they would not achieve their manifesto commitment to give people of limited means greater access to the law, not less access to the law. Greater access means providing advice and assistance either free or at a price which they can afford.
We had a particular anxiety about the Lord Chancellor's proposals to end the contributory part of the green form scheme. That could affect access to legal services for up to 100,000 people, just at the time when it is most necessary because it can head off many legal actions, if the advice achieves a certain result. We could not see what objection there was to people making a contribution, if they could afford some, but not all of the costs.
We could not see any convincing reason why the Lord Chancellor proposed to leave the scheme in existence in Scotland for tapering off contributions, but to end it completely in England and Wales so that people will have no access to the green form scheme if their income is more than about £61 a week. Such discrimination in favour of the Scots by a Scot we found to be carrying kith and kinship too far. We recommended that such discrimination should cease. We are, after all, a united country.
We noticed in passing that a large part of the legal aid budget was eaten up by VAT. As VAT merely transfers public funds from the Treasury to the Lord Chancellor's Department and back to the Treasury, it serves no practical purpose except to complicate matters and boost bureaucratic costs. We were pleased to hear that the Lord Chancellor thought its removal worthy of consideration.
Of course, there is a great deal more wrong with the legal aid system. We had time to examine and report on only some of it. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, we make a lot more law in

Parliament than we used to. We give more people more rights and make people more aware of them. It should not surprise us that they take advantage of that and, therefore, claim more legal aid.
However, too much money is being wasted. The money could often be better allocated. Furthermore, there is an inherent injustice about a system which encourages one party to a legal dispute to take legal action confident in the belief that it will cost him nothing or hardly anything, against another party who has to pay all his costs and who, if he wins, will receive not a penny of damages or costs. Justice should be open to all, not just the rich and the poor but the person in between.
We simply do not know how many people with a good case never bring it or defend themselves with it because they cannot afford to do so in case they lose and they cannot be helped by legal aid. That is the other side of the coin to those who are unjustly treated by the system because they cannot afford to contribute to legal aid, or because legal aid is simply not available. On that issue neither I nor the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee could offer immediate constructive suggestions. The matter needs a full and detailed study. Perhaps something will come out of the Runciman royal commission on that issue.
But many avenues for saving legal aid waste should be explored. Other hon. Members will want to speak, so I shall mention them only briefly. First, instead of paying criminal legal aid with inadequate assessment of means, we could be much more thorough. If a case is likely to cost the tax payer millions of pounds, those involved in large criminal inquiries might be invited to produce a thorough breakdown of their means and assets, with the assistance of a state investigator, before they are awarded hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal aid. We might be surprised how many people would not choose to have their affairs investigated and would either pay the lawyers privately or decide to plead guilty whereas if they had got a free defence they might have had nothing to lose by pleading not guilty.
Secondly, in civil cases, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 provided for conditional fees. That provision has not been brought into effect. It might help some. Clients may negotiate with solicitors a no-win, no-fee arrangement. The Bar is chary about that, but the provision is on the statute book, so let us introduce it.
Thirdly, a contingency fund could be set up, financed by a levy on all damages won in civil cases. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made the point persuasively in the Committee's questioning. Most civil claims end in success or at any rate end in one party receiving a substantial amount in damages. The levy could be used to relieve the burden on the legal aid fund. Such a scheme was set up in Hong Kong in 1984 and became self-financing after four years.
Fourthly, more use could be made of private legal insurance taken out by employers on behalf of employees similar to BUPA in medicine, the AA and RAC schemes and the Legal Protection Group, which is part of Sun Alliance. The more that such insurance was taken out, the less burden there would be on state legal aid.
Fifthly, we could deliver a cheaper legal service in some cases by having salaried lawyers working from law centres where there is an inadequacy of private solicitors in a particular area. I understand how small solicitors feel about that. Obviously, they should not be threatened. However, there are plenty of parts of the country,


especially following the Government's reforms of the professions, where there is simply no solicitor. The salaried service operating from law centres would obviously be sensible.
Sixthly, the Government are actively considering the franchising of legal advice as a contract between the Legal Aid Board and the franchisee, for block advice in a large number of cases at an all-in fee. That seems sensible.
Seventhly, we could resolve disputes, especially in matrimonial matters, without the need for confrontational legal appearances in court. Relate has recommended that system and achieved some success in it.
Eighthly, we could do more to expand the use of the small claims courts, where legal expenses are minimal and rough justice—not always so rough—is often, if not frequently, obtained.
I could go on. The field of possible legal reform is large. As the Select Committee reported, this corner—the financing of the law—is particularly fertile. Let us all—the politicians, the Lord Chancellor, his Department, the legal professions and the courts administration, judges included —seek to improve the system. The system can be improved. There is a large area in which those improvements could take place.
I finish by quoting the last paragraph of our report on
page xxvii. It says:
Our inquiry has demonstrated that unless the whole legal aid system is fully reviewed and all the relevant parties act together and constructively in undertaking that review, cuts will continue to be forced on governments. The principal sufferer will then inevitably be the one person everyone seeks to help—the person of modest means with a legitimate case, who seeks the protection of the law.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I am grateful to you for calling me so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I intend to be brief, and I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. I served on the Select Committee which drew up the report. The cuts—I use the word "cuts"—in the number of people who will be eligible for legal aid were perhaps untimely. There are ways in which the matter could have been put off to enable people to examine the system. It occurred to me when the evidence was being taken, as it did to many members of the Committee, that one simple way of reducing the cost would be not to pay VAT on legal aid payments. The Government should not pay it out simply to get it back six weeks later. It is a waste of money. It causes bureaucracy. It costs money. It is waste.
There are various other matters. For example, the Lord Chancellor's Department did not appear to have taken into account the fact that the number of people charged in police stations during the last quarter of last year fell by some 12 per cent. Indeed, as the newspapers have reported, the number of reportable crimes has also fallen by 4 per cent. Therefore, there will be a reduction in the volume of cases going through the courts. Even now, court rooms are standing empty in major magistrates courts and legal aid certificates are not being granted because there are not the cases for them.
Criminal legal aid forms by far the largest proportion of the legal aid bill. As the number of cases is decreasing, the amount being paid out in legal aid in 1992–93 will also decrease.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the fairly typical metropolitan jurisdiction of Solihull, from where I come, there is already clear evidence that completions of caseload in January 1993 are up on January 1992? Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's comparison of last quarters could be deceptive. Incidentally, I attach no more importance to my statistic than I do to his; I measure it with the same caution as I would the last quarters.

Mr. Bermingham: It appears that Solihull is a criminal place. The evidence from north London, Merseyside and elsewhere throughout the country goes the other way—but time will tell. The point is that it is the sort of factor that has never been studied. Indeed, we have never studied in depth the way in which legal aid is administered and where spending occurs. We all have anecdotes; I could keep the House up all night with them, but I do not intend to do that. It would serve no purpose, because there is no hard evidence. That will come only from a detailed and efficient inquiry into these matters. Therefore, my first request to the Minister is that such an inquiry be put in hand urgently.
In my experience of criminal legal aid, I have never understood why it is necessary to wait until the last possible moment to find out whether somebody has pleaded guilty or not guilty in what is a standard case. There are enormous savings to be made in that and other areas. For example, in a magistrates court, it is often to the advantage of a defendant to plead early, if he intends to plead. Very often, a good duty solicitor can assess within the first few hours whether in a simple case—I am not talking about complicated cases—there is to be a plea. If there is, the matter should be dealt with on the spot.
Unfortunately, there has been a slight complication because of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which has led to some sentencing problems. That has increased the cost of legal aid. However, with good will on all sides we could rectify the mistakes in the Act. I do not think that there is a lawyer in the country who would say that the Act is anything other than flawed.
It is wrong that the overall effect of the proposals is to attack civil legal aid. Criminal legal aid will emerge largely unscathed—although there may be a little more difficulty in getting expert witnesses and so on—while the real cut will be in eligibility for civil legal aid. I made similar points in Committee, and they are in the report. Some 92 per cent. of personal injury cases succeed, with recovery running at about £2 million a week in lost benefits, with the likelihood that that figure will rise. That is money going back to the state.
The overall cost of accident claims last year was a paltry £11 million. That is nothing. However, the proposals will affect a number of people—I will not play the numbers game—who will no longer be able to go to a lawyer and get legal aid to bring an accident claim. Of course, if that person was either a passenger in a car or had been knocked down, he would still be covered: many lawyers do not even bother to apply for legal aid for such cases, because their costs following the event are assured.
I met a number of solicitors in St. Helens last Saturday and discussed the issues with them. They were worried that the cases that would be most affected would be those with claims of about £1,000 or £2,000. The people who will


suffer under the eligibility cuts are the very people who want to bring such claims. They will be very much under attack.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is speculation that the arbitration system in the small claims court may be extended upwards to cover the claims to which he has referred. Does he have any observations on that?

Mr. Bermingham: I have only one brief observation. A solicitor that I met in St. Helens on Saturday, who is not of my political persuasion, said that that would close his litigation department. He said that, once those claims were taken away from him, his litigation department could not survive, because it does not attract the big claims. We must remember that many solicitors in rural areas and small towns rely for their livelihoods—and they are not the world's richest—on such claims, where they win their costs. In the end, there is no real cost to the taxpayer.
My cri de coeur to the Minister is that two groups will suffer most from what is being proposed—first, battered wives and other victims of violence; secondly, children. Those are the two groups where the greatest damage will be done. I hope that, for once, the House will put politics aside and think of human beings and the victims of abuse, domestic violence, car accidents, work accidents and so on. Let us all stand back, albeit for a few months, while we thoroughly investigate these matters and find where the savings can be made—and both professional bodies acknowledge that there are savings to be made within the system. Let us deny these regulations today; they can always be brought back before us after the inquiry, if they are justified.
I have a sneaking feeling that, once we begin to nibble away at eligibility, it will be nibbled and gone for ever. I ask the House and the Minister to think of the 100,000 or 125,000 people who will suffer. That is an incredible number. How much human misery is there in that figure? For once, let us not be partisan. We should stand back, gather the evidence and then act with realism and decision. I happen to believe that we could increase the net for legal aid without it costing any more money. That would bring a little more civilisation to many more people.

Dame Jill Knight: My speech folows those of two colleagues who, like me, are members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
Members of the Committee reached unanimous agreement on certain points. First, however we felt about the emotional aspects of legal aid, we were all appalled by the soaring cost. Legal aid has seen the biggest increase in the whole of the public sector during the past few years, and we cannot go on like that.
The most important discovery during our deliberations was the enormously fertile area in which we can look for ways to make savings. We have heard many suggestions about that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton made a point about VAT, which was taken up by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. We cannot quantify it, because we have not done sufficient work yet.
It might also be worth considering the difference between the remuneration of barristers and the remuneration of solicitors. The Committee was told that there was a great scope for savings in barristers' remuneration. For example, if one counsel were used instead of two in a big criminal case, important savings could be made.
The figures surprised us very much. We were told that, for instance, a barrister acting in a child law case would receive £300 an hour for reading papers, and £2,000 a day in refreshers. A while ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions told us that her average brief fee payment to a Queen's counsel for a trial lasting the average length of 2·6 days was £7,585. Those are bizarre sums—and, moreover, the fees are paid on legal aid.

Mr. Lawrence: They are not. Such sums simply are not paid on legal aid.

Dame Jill Knight: On page 11 of the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, we find the question:
Are those fees paid on legal aid?
The answer was:
Yes".
Perhaps the position should be clarified, but in any event —regardless of whether legal aid is involved—an enormous amount of money is being spent.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Is not the crux of the matter the fact that we have no facts and figures apart from those in the Select Committee report? Moreover, it is clear that there is a dispute among members of the Committee about whether such fees are paid.

Dame Jill Knight: I agree. As the Chairman of the Committee has pointed out, we were not trying to decide where savings could be made; the points to which I have referred simply arose as we went along.
In what I assure hon. Members will be a short speech, I wish to deal with the Legal Aid Board from a rather different angle. Its activities concern me very much. If a Member of Parliament has reason to question the allocation of legal aid, he had better understand that the board will deal with his inquiry with all the courtesy, helpfulness and understanding of a thug with a leaded sock. In cases brought to me, legal aid has been granted to would-be litigants with ample resources: indeed, that point was raised in an intervention. One such litigant had four cars, and lived very well in an extremely pleasant and expensive house.

Mr. Peter Butler: Everyone has four cars.

Dame Jill Knight: I assure my hon. Friend that I have only one. However, I am not applying for legal aid.
The parties against whom that constituent wished to act —this was not a criminal matter, but a neighbourhood dispute involving planning—were astounded to find themselves being taken to court. They lived next door to my constituent, and saw the style in which he lived: they saw unmistakable signs of affluence. Nevertheless, the grant was provided, enabling that man almost to ruin the people against whom he was acting. It was they, of course, who complained to me.
I felt that legal aid should not have been granted in that case. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which —in the time-honoured manner of Government


Departments—handed me on to another Department, or at least said that I had better write to the Legal Aid Board. I did so.
I believe that I had a perfect right to question the board about its decision. Public money was being used. I did not want to be given confidential facts about the case; I simply wanted to know that the full facts of the matter—which had been reported to me, and on which I had reported to the Legal Aid Board—had been properly considered. I felt that I had a right to a proper answer. I feel very strongly that all Members of Parliament have not merely a right but a duty to pursue what they consider to be genuine complaints.

Mr. James Pawsey: My hon. Friend is making a persuasive case, to which I have listened with interest. Is she aware that, in certain cases, it might be possible to refer such queries to the Parliamentary Commissioner, who would be only too pleased to pursue them in more detail and at greater length? My hon. Friend may agree with my view that the Commissioner's office is under-used by the House. In this regard, he could be the right arm of Members of Parliament.

Dame Jill Knight: I shall consider that helpful suggestion carefully.
It seems sensible to me for someone who queries what the Legal Aid Board is doing to go straight to the board itself. I did that: I wrote a courteous letter, giving the facts as I knew them. The answer I received was rude, dismissive and completely uninformative. It was a "Yes, Minister" version of: "Go to hell: we do what we want, and no one is allowed to question us." That will not do. Surely Members of Parliament form the only body that can question the Legal Aid Board; I know of no other organisation that can say to the board, "Are you sure you are absolutely right?" It appears, however, that no one has the right to expect a courteous and informative answer from the board.
Let me ask my hon. Friend a direct question: will he please examine this matter? It concerns not only me, but other hon. Members who have raised similar cases with the Legal Aid Board and have tried to persuade it to behave in a civilised and helpful manner.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I do not often agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), although we have a long history of debating matters such as this. It goes back to the days when we sat our Bar exams together. However, I sympathised with a good deal of his speech, especially his positive suggestions for getting to the root of the problem of the rising cost of legal aid. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) wishes to intervene, he will take up a little of my time; if he does not, perhaps he will kindly refrain from gesticulating in a manner which suggests that he does.
The proposals that we are discussing will be extremely damaging to the rights of ordinary people. I shall not engage in an argument about the precise number who will be hit; even the Government have acknowledged that more than 120,000 people in England and Wales will drop

out of legal aid altogether. The Law Society of England and Wales properly drew attention to the much larger penumbra who will have to make contributions. No one has attempted to deny that the society was probably right in saying that as many as 12 million families could be affected by the Government's proposals.

Mr. Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: Madam Speaker has asked for short speeches. As I do not intend to speak for long, I should prefer not to give way. Mine will be the only Liberal contribution to this brief three-hour debate.
The Law Society of Scotland has also produced some figures, which no one has seriously contested, about the damage that the proposals will do. I find the lumping together of debates on the English and Scottish arrangements unacceptable; the two subjects are entirely distinct and require distinct solutions. There must be a proper review of the Scottish criminal justice system, not just the administration of legal aid in Scotland.
One significant difference between the Scottish and English and Welsh systems is that, although rising, the average cost of a case in Scottish courts is a little over half that in English and Welsh courts. It is perverse of the Scottish Office to beat the people of Scotland with the same stick as is being used in England and, on the coat tails of the Lord Chancellor, to impose cuts which are not necessary even judged purely in terms of public expenditure costs in Scotland. Indeed, the Government have predicted a long-term decline in the demand for legal aid in Scotland due to demographic changes.
Perhaps the most serious aspect of the debate is not the hardship that these measures will create, appalling though it may be—hon. Members have said that family law cases are most likely to involve serious hardship—but that the measures will not even address the problem that they are apparently designed to address. On 3 February, in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I have the honour to belong, the Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department told us that these measures will not reduce expenditure on legal aid but will merely restrain it—and only slightly at that. In other words, we are being asked to swallow something that will not tackle the problem that the Lord Chancellor's Department has identified. We have not had from the Lord Chancellor's Department, and certainly not from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, any evidence about how it is proposed effectively to tackle the problem of the spiralling costs of legal aid. We were told that the measures will not be terribly damaging to the interests of those whose eligibility has been reduced—the Department focused on that point—but the debate should address the question of how to get at the root problem.
The rights that these measures are interfering with are of no use unless they can be exercised, and liberties are of no value unless they can be protected. The purpose of the law is to ensure that our rights and liberties are protected. If a person cannot pursue his legal rights in court or defend himself against attack, those rights and liberties do not exist and, in a real sense, the Government's proposals contribute to the creation of a lawless society.
There is no doubt that the rising cost of legal aid is a challenge to everyone who cares about access to justice and that, unchecked, there would have to be a substantial further injection of cash to provide an adequate service


from the existing system, but I draw the House's attention to comments that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Taylor, made in another place in an earlier debate on the subject. He said:
Experience shows that so far from saving overall costs by denying legal aid, costs may be incurred which legal aid may have avoided. There are many cases in which a litigant in person ploughs on when legal advice would have persuaded him that he had no case. He is likely to take more of the court's time partly because he may have difficulty in presenting his case intelligently and partly because the court needs to be more indulgent to him… The Master of the Rolls tells me that already about 20 per cent. of the sitting time in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is taken up by litigants in person."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 1993; Vol. 542, c. 282–3.]
In short, if economies are to be made which do not result in the denial of justice, there is little choice but to look seriously at the system of courts, advice and assistance. In so far as there is a royal commission sitting on the criminal justice system, it might be argued that no serious amendments of the kind being considered today should have been introduced before the report of the royal commission, which no doubt will have relevant comments to make on procedure and evidence.
I therefore—in no sense comprehensively—conclude my remarks by offering a few suggestions which are worthy of consideration as to how we might seek better to address the problem of how to spend the money that we have, rather than simply cutting to save money. First, the Government should consider the possibility of taking a firm step on the road towards a more comprehensive system of alternative dispute resolution than is currently offered. Demand on the courts could be reduced by diverting cases to tribunals and hearings, whose decisions could be made binding. Secondly, we should extend the requirement for compulsory insurance into areas where it is appropriate to do so, which could reduce the need of many to go to court, as it has in employment, personal injury and traffic accident cases.
Thirdly, we should consider extending the role of the ombudsman, encouraging trade associations to set up their own ombudsman for each industry as an alternative and cheaper means of satisfactorily resolving disputes outside the courtroom. Fourthly, we should consider introducing wider use of plea bargaining. A guilty plea would result in a lower sentence, less time in court and lower cost. Justice must still be done and innocents must be protected from pressures to plead guilty. The Seabrook model provides a starting point for such a system, but not a perfect one. Fifthly, we should consider wider use of judges' summonses for directions in criminal cases. This allows the judge to manage the progress of the trial by calling for documents at specific times, thus facilitating a speedier, and therefore cheaper, procedure.
We must also recognise the extent to which weak cases constitute an expensive and unnecessary burden on the courts. The Bar Council has recommended that the merits test of the Legal Aid Act 1988 should be tightened to provide a workable and sufficiently realistic equivalent to the pressures and choices imposed on private litigants.
We must find a more efficient and comprehensive means of providing advice and representation. I note, with approval, the proposal of the chairman of the Bar Council that every barrister might be asked to undertake at least one free case each year—pro bono publico. That is the kind of gesture which could make quite a significant impact on costs. The Lord Chancellor has signalled his

desire to introduce franchising and fixed fees, against many objections by the legal profession that neither of the proposals would have beneficial effects. If the Government press ahead with their proposals, I foresee that they will simply deprive large parts of the country of the benefits of legal advice from solicitors, who will close down their operations. That is entirely the wrong track to take.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: I said that I would not give way, but as I have particular regard for the hon. Gentleman I will give way briefly.

Mr. Nicholson: I am most grateful. As a fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee, and also as a member of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, I am following the hon. Gentleman's proposals with great interest and considerable approval. They are alternative ways of resolving a genuine problem. I have not yet heard him mention what role the Child Support Agency may have in moving into administrative procedures matters, which are currently resolved in the courts at great length and often unsatisfactorily.

Mr. Maclennan: That is one of the proposals to which the Government should give serious and constructive consideration.
I was about to mention the provision of advice through law centres. The funding and proper provision of law centres can be enormously helpful in creating an efficient, effective and accessible source of help, which can substantially reduce the costs of legal aid. However, local authorities across the country are finding it increasingly difficult to fund them, and 10 have closed in the past few years.
There could be tremendous savings if such organisations were properly funded. I acknowledge that it is difficult to give a precise estimate of their economic value, but their important scope and worth has long been recognised. As long ago as 1979, the royal commission on legal services concluded that their impact had been
out of all proportion to their size".
I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that a large amount of work is pre-empted—for example, in the case of groups of tenants of housing estates. In such instances, their work can prevent expenditure.
I cite an example from, I believe, the constituency of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The Brent law centre represented 2,350 council tenants as a single group against the local authority. Had the cases been dealt with by a private practice, each of the 2,350 litigants would have had to be represented individually. In the future, law centres could offer still further scope for innovative and efficient means of delivering local services. For example, they are in an ideal position to provide a duty solicitor scheme in county courts for cases where representation is crucial, paid on a sessional basis.
We must examine the administration of the courts themselves. Delays in courts and the problems created by non-attendance are expensive. In 1991, the National Audit Office survey, which was conducted before the sitting of the Public Accounts Committee, found that 66 per cent. of clients had experienced delays in the handling of their case but the true causes of such delays are apparently unknown to the Lord Chancellor's Department. The technology that the Department says may help it to monitor such problems


will not be in place until later this year, despite the fact that the Public Accounts Committee recommended that it should be set up as long ago as 1986. It is clear from the National Audit Office survey that many court administrative practices are inefficient and inappropriate to the volume and complexity of today's cases.
I have suggested a substantial package of reforms which is illustrative rather than exhaustive. It is clear that we cannot continue year after year to try to shore up our crumbling system of legal aid by further cuts in eligibility. It is entirely misleading for the Government to suggest that the only people who will be adversely affected by what the Government are doing are those who are dropping out of legal aid. It is the people on low incomes, just above the income support level, who will be most adversely affected.
I believe that the measures should be withdrawn. They should not be implemented on 12 April as intended, and no measures should be brought before the House to cut eligibility for legal aid unless and until the Government are able to diagnose why legal aid costs are spiralling in some parts of the system and what steps they can and will take to reduce the unacceptable increases in costs. Such proposals must be more pertinent than those before us. The reform of our faulty system is necessary and urgent.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Thank you for calling me at this time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall also endeavour to be as brief as I can. I had planned to make a three-hour or four-hour speech until your earlier admonition. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has, as ever, made a thoughtful contribution to our proceedings, and I am sure that he will have been listened to with great care.
Before coming to the guts of my speech, may I attempt to clear up an apparent confusion in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)? She mentioned some enormous figures for the daily rates for counsel f9r reading papers and so on. Page 11 of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs contains an exchange between the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and Mr. Birts QC, one of the barristers who gave evidence. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South said:
It has been put to us, for example, that a barrister in a child law case would receive £300 per hour for reading papers and £2,000 a day as refreshers. The Director of Public Prosecutions said to us a while ago that her average payment brief fee to a QC for an average 2·6 day trial was £7,585. I have to put it to you that these are bizarre sums of money to those of us who are not lawyers.
Mr. Birts said:
Are those fees paid on legal aid?
One can imagine the inflection in his voice as he asked that question. The hon. Gentleman said, "Yes." Mr. Birts continued:
I think it is important to know that and to know whether they have been through the taxation process or the assessment process. Are they taxation figures or not?
It is likely that that question was based on a false premise or that there was a misunderstanding about the evidence that the DPP had given to the Committee on another matter.
What is more telling is that a little later, in paragraph 67 on page 12, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South wanted to know what was
the average payment in a criminal case per hour, first of all, and then what is the average refresher?
Mr. Calvert-Smith, a junior from the Bar, answered:
The base figure is £29 an hour. That is the base figure upon which 86 per cent. of all criminal cases are paid because they are standard fee cases.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South replied:
You amaze me, I must say.
Mr. Calvert-Smith said:
I am sorry, it is true.
The hon. Gentleman then asked:
You are telling us—let us be clear—that the average barrister charges £29 an hour?
Mr. Calvert-Smith replied:
We do not charge the legal aid system in 86 per cent. of cases. We are sent a brief which says "Standard fee" on it. We know exactly to the last pound and shilling what we are going to get paid, and we know that that has been based on the figure of £29 an hour prep."—
preparation—
as average in all standard cases, so that is the base figure.
That is what the Lord Chancellor thinks that he is paying as an average fee to 86 per cent. of criminal practitioners.
I hope that that has cleared up some of the confusion which arose unwittingly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston.
I start with one or two givens, which I am sure will be accepted by all hon. Members. The legal aid system was one of the great legal reforms of the century. Its introduction into our system of legal affairs just after the second world war was a benchmark. It was the intention of the Rushcliffe report, after which the system was established, that no one should be
financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or defend a legal right.
That principle has been reasserted throughout the decades since 1949 and was endorsed in other words by the Lord Chancellor. He told the Home Affairs Select Committee:
The legal aid scheme exists to ensure that ordinary people can have the protection of the law. It is the legal aid scheme which gives many people access to the law, and underpins justice and the freedom of the individual.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman quote what the Lord Chancellor told the Home Affairs Select Committee of which I, too, am a member. How does he reconcile that with what the Lord Chancellor said in 1990:
What we need to debate in the 1990s is the need to secure better access for those whose means exclude them from the legal aid scheme but are not sufficient to pursue cases through the courts"?
Do not the Lord Chancellor's present proposals run totally contrary to that, and to what the hon. Gentleman has just quoted?

Mr. Garnier: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have a chance to make a contribution in due course, and I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has already dealt with that question. There will always be a cut-off point; some people will always be on the wrong side of the boundary, and a humane society must seek to mitigate the effects of that as far as possible.
We must bear in mind the fact that it is estimated that, by the financial year 1995, we shall be talking about a legal aid budget of £1·5 billion in cash terms. That is a lot of money, even in the language of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). A substantial


proportion of the gross cost of some aspects of the legal aid budget is recovered—especially in cases such as personal injury. However, it has to be faced, whether we like it or not, that net costs have risen at well above the rate of inflation.
Perhaps I should make the declaration that I too am a member of the Bar, although, as I have probably done no more than four legal aid cases in 15 or 16 years at the Bar —I specialise entirely in defamation work, which is one of the exceptions to the legal aid provisions—I may be able to talk with some disinterest—

Mr. Paul Boateng: Being privately funded.

Mr. Garnier: Labour Members may think that I am one of the fat cats of the privately funded Bar, but I too was open-mouthed and most impressed by the figures presented by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South in his questioning of Mr. Birts. No one in my chambers would look askance at those fees.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: May I vouch for the moderation of my hon. Friend's fees?

Mr. Nicholls: They are all lawyers on that Committee.

Dame Jill Knight: No, they are not.

Mr. Garnier: They are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South are not lawyers; nor is my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). All three of them have played a great part in our deliberations and have been most helpful to all of us.
Little research has been done into why the costs are rising at such a rate. Some limited research has been carried out by the Legal Aid Board, and the National Audit Office has reported on its behalf. The report shows a substantial rise in the numbers of letters written and telephone calls made per case, and so forth, but no single explanation is given.
Nor were the legal professions able to give us an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the growth in costs. Witnesses recognised a number of factors that might have been causes of the massive and increasing rise in costs. In civil cases, there are the effects of the Children Act and the growth of judicial review. Witnesses also identified an increased awareness of litigation and of legal rights, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), our Chairman, has already mentioned.
Other witnesses mentioned administrative failures in the legal system, including listing inefficiencies and adjournments in the magistrates courts. My experience in the Queen's Bench division of the High Court and in the civil jury list is that efficiencies have been manifest, and libel actions and civil jury actions set down come on for trial within 29 days after setting down, rather than the two-year wait on which we often used to rely some time ago.
Sir Michael Davies, the judge in charge of the jury list, and his successor in that office, Mr. Justice Drake, have done tremendous work to increase efficiencies. The need for efficiencies has been recognised and the efforts are bearing fruit, especially in the division in which I practise. With proper training of listing officers and the proper use of computers, and good will both from the administration

and from practitioners, there is no reason why further improvements could not be made in other courts, especially the criminal courts.
For reasons of time, I shall not detail all the factors that witnesses identified to the Committee as being responsible for the immense rate of increase in the cost of legal aid. Suffice it to say that that cost has effectively doubled as a proportion of Government expenditure. No Government, regardless of the economic circumstances that we are presently in but are shortly to come out of, could allow increased expenditure at that rate without some check upon it.
The Committee unanimously agreed that a full and detailed analysis of the reasons for the rise in demand for legal aid, and for the increase in costs per case, must be undertaken. I differ from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who said that the inquiry should take place before today's regulations came into effect. In my suggestion—I almost said "in my submission"—the regulations which, assuming a fair wind this evening, will come into force on 11 April, will act as a catalyst and encourage debate about that aspect of Government expenditure.
The Lord Chancellor told us in his evidence:
if current rates of growth were allowed to continue, expenditure on legal aid would be likely to be close to £2 billion by 1995–96".
That would represent an exact doubling of the proportion of public expenditure devoted to legal aid in 1987–88.
Now I shall mention some of our suggestions about how savings could be increased. We concluded in our report:
The savings forecast will be made under the legal aid head of the Lord Chancellor's budget. It is a notorious problem of public expenditure planning that savings in one area may result in costs in another, without any mechanism for properly judging those costs and taking them into account in the equation.
Clearly the Lord Chancellor had views on the matter, as did those who gave evidence to the Committee and supplied evidence in written form.
In my private conversations with members of the judiciary, especially members of the Court of Appeal, the question of the added costs to the system of administering justice brought about by an increase in the number of unprepared or incompetent—I use that term strictly litigants in person clogging up the system, especially in the Court of Appeal, is frequently raised. For example, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal now has five legal civil servants working for him, employed more or less full time in trying to untangle the propositions advanced by litigants in person who wish to apply to that court. I suggest that there are better uses of those civil servants' time than seeking to read the green ink—hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt recognise the green ink syndrome. It seems an utter waste of the intellect and time of Court of Appeal judges and of the registrar's civil servants that they should have to wade through all that before being able to reach a judicial conclusion. But identifying that problem does not mean that we can sit back and say, "More money, more money", irrespective of whether that money is being wisely spent.
Others suggested that people would bring cases at first instance which lacked merit, by virtue of their not having been given legal aid. Under order 18, rule 19, of the rules of the Supreme Court—I am sure that an equivalent


procedure is available in the county courts—there is a method by which cases can be struck out summarily if they want merit. I do not see why litigants in person should be treated differently from represented litigants. If their cases lack merit, they should be snuffed out at birth.

Mr. Donald Anderson: They are.

Mr. Garnier: I am told that they are. All the better for that.

Mr. Anderson: When I said that they are, I mean that it is my understanding that judges lean over backwards, understandably, to help the litigant in person. That will clearly be a further cog in the machine and another matter on the side of the equation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Garnier: I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I should like to move on.
We must consider how we are to save money in the longer term as well as identifying the need to save money and deal with the problem as it is currently presented to us. The first area in which we in the Committee believe that savings can be made is in the administration of the present legal aid system. The matter was the subject of a recent report from the National Audit Office and has been the subject of hearings of the Public Accounts Committee, which will, I believe, shortly produce a report by which we will no doubt be informed. But that should not prevent us at this stage from doing our best and taking steps to check the unmitigated flow of money into the legal aid system without its being properly accounted for.
It is not just the mechanics of the present system that may need scrutiny. Others have talked about the need to look at the planning and overall strategy of the legal aid system since its inception in 1949. The furore that the Lord Chancellor's proposals have engendered may act as a catalyst to allow a more fundamental and strategic look at the purposes of legal aid and at the best means of delivering service to the consumer.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton has outlined a number of the alternatives that might be available—alternative legal disputes settlements and so forth. I would just caution the House about being too easily seduced by short-cut judicial remedies, because hasty court work is often not conducive to bringing justice into the world. There are a lot of criticisms to be made of the "no win, no fee" system. It simply does not apply sensibly to cases where injunctive relief or other equitable relief is being sought, and that is very often the case in legal aid matrimonial cases.
We all accept the need to find value for money, but I would suggest that we start that now rather than allowing the debate to rumble on without a proper date being put on it.
In his evidence to us, the Lord Chancellor has made it quite clear that he has an open mind—

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Garnier: I am conscious of the time, and I really must push on.

Mr. Llwyd: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, if the Member who has the Floor does not give way, he must resume his seat.
While I am on my feet, may I remind the hon. Member that there are no bonus points for Members who make long speeches when the Chair has requested short ones?

Mr. Garnier: That was exactly the admonition I had in mind in not giving way. I do not wish to be unkind, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
All interested parties are now in a frame of mind where they are prepared to meet and, I would suggest, discuss constructively how best to achieve the common aim of us all, ensuring the best delivery of justice to the public. This set of regulations is just the beginning of assisting to that end. I commend the regulations to the House as but the beginning of the process.

Mr. William McKelvey: If there is anything that I am famous for, it is the brevity of my speeches. I am not sure about the quality.
First of all, on behalf of Scotland and England and Wales, I protest at the fact that we have squeezed these two debates into one, in a time which is totally insufficient to begin to discuss the seriousness of these affairs. Only two weeks ago, we managed to get two separate debates on the late opening of betting shops in England and Wales and in Scotland, and, important as that subject may be, it pales into insignificance beside the importance of what is happening here. It is a disgrace, and it also confuses the issue. The Minister constantly moved back and forth between England and Wales and Scotland, yet it is impossible, because the two systems are not comparable. Because of that, there will be a lot more confusion of those who are listening to the debate elsewhere.
Before I am accused of being some sort of ethnic cleanser, I want to point out that I do not distance myself from the business of England and Wales and Ireland in this matter, because the justice which ought to prevail for everyone is equal in all those areas of the United Kingdom. I am an internationalist, not a nationalist, particularly where justice is concerned.
I notice with great interest that the Select Committee on Home Affairs spent a great deal of time discussing the reasons for the increase. That was understandable, although the Committee did not have the extended time that it would have needed to go into all the ramifications of trying to put that right. But my recollection, if it is correct, is that there was very little discussion of the recession as a contributory factor. This was in contrast to the 1991 annual report of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which observed:
it seems likely that the recession has been a significant contributory factor
in the growth in demand for civil legal aid and an
exceptionally high and unexpected rise
in the volume of accounts received by the board. At that time, it was indicating, at least to the Government, that, as regards Scotland, an increase was on its way. The Government had plenty of time to look at the reasons for the increase because they were given the warning then.
However, as far as I can gather, the most significant cause of the increase in the cost of legal aid in England and Wales identified by the Lord Chancellor—the rise in the average cost per case—appears not to be a factor in


Scotland. In fact, the average cost per case in Scotland was £815. I realise that it is unfair to compare the two costs because of different systems; nevertheless, in England and Wales it was £2,008 per case. Therefore, the Chancellor, having noticed the spiralling costs in England, had a knee-jerk reaction, Treasury-led, which fed through to Scotland. As was said earlier, we were hanging on the coat-tails of the action that had to be taken immediately here in England because of the spiralling costs.

Mr. Mike Watson: On that point of the cost, my hon. Friend will have heard the Minister say that the cost of civil legal aid had almost doubled in the past five years. Does he recall that, at last week's meeting of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, Mr. Brian Adair, president of the Law Society of Scotland, refuted that saying there had been no increase in real terms, and that it was only over the past year. He described the increase as a blip, and said that it was due to a number of factors, including the fact that solicitors are submitting their accounts faster because of the recession.
Is it not a fact that there is no demand for this review of legal aid in Scotland, and that we are just being tagged on the back of the English and Welsh review, for reasons which suit the Government but do not suit the people or the legal profession in Scotland?

Mr. McKelvey: That is indeed the case, but if there is—as there ought to be—an immediate investigation of legal aid costs in England and Wales, I would not object to a subsequent investigation into the costs of legal aid in Scotland, because, if there is any waste of money by virtue of the system, such money could be put to a proper use by making legal aid available to a larger number of people rather than a smaller number, as will happen under these regulations.
I cannot give evidence, because there has not been an investigation to provide it, but from a gut reaction and from my own personl experience as a constituency Member of the people who come to me seeking advice, I feel that there is no question but that the recession, with greater unemployment, has led to more domestic separations and violence, and more problems caused by the lack of jobs or money. It must have had an effect on people who seek legal aid, and it is those very people that we are going to bar.
I do not want to get involved in the numbers game, but if there is one person, one family, one group, who will be denied legal aid and yet who deserve it in all justice, there is something wrong with this process that we are going through today. Several groups of people have written to us—Family Law, the citizens' advice bureaux, Glasgow Women's Aid, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Law Society—and a common thread runs through their letters. They have made out a case not for themselves but for those who, they say, will suffer because of this legislation, and they are not just the poorest and neediest but include even those on moderate incomes. Are the Government seeking to turn this legislation into an extension of the benefits system? I suspect that they are. I object to that, and I support the objections from various groups.
Family law cases account for the majority of expenditure in civil legal aid cases and for half the expenditure in advice and assistance. It follows that any reduction in eligibility would have a major impact on that

area of law. The majority of initiators of family proceedings are women. The nature of the eligibility criteria for civil legal aid are such that only the woman's income is assessed, and the husband's is discounted. As women are traditionally responsible for child care, they are often in part-time employment to fit in with their child care obligations. Women are also traditionally at the lower end of the earnings scale. Any reduction in eligibility for civil aid will disproportionately affect women across a broad spectrum. I am not saying that there are not men in that position; of course there are. However, proportionately it is women who will bear the brunt of the cuts.
Glasgow Women's Aid says:
Abuse of women takes place in every sector of society; both rich and poor men are abusive, and regardless of the financial situation within the family few women have control over the financial resources.
That is not a guess, but a fact. Women in Scotland will bear the brunt of the suggested cuts.
Although the Government announced on 17 February revisions to their proposals to change the legal aid system in Scotland, there remains concern that individuals' access to justice is under serious threat. The Scottish Council for Civil Liberties says of the legal aid system:
This is an important right which has been recognised by many international treaties and courts and cannot be discarded lightly.
If the Government are modern, democratic and caring —they say that they pursue policies of charters for people: charters for patients, charters for pupils and charters for pupils' parents—they cannot turn their back on the basis on which the interests of people are looked after—the question of human rights.
The universal declaration of human rights, which has been adopted by 48 states of the United Nations General Assembly, says in article 7:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
The people of Scotland, of England, of Northern Ireland and of Wales are entitled to that equality, and are entitled not to be discriminated against. They should not be concerned, as they are at the moment, about what will happen to them after today's debate.
The Scottish Association for Mental Health has outlined two important areas which we should consider: civil legal aid and mental health hearings. If the proposed changes to civil legal aid take place, people with disabilities might have to face large bills for legal fees if they were involved in court proceedings. Among the proceedings covered by the rules would be a hearing to determine whether a person should be detained in hospital under section 18 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
Among the people who might be affected by the changes are those on invalidity benefit. A person who was unable to work because of mental health problems could be entitled to invalidity benefit if he or she had paid the appropriate contributions. The benefits range from £54·15 for older people to £65·70 for a disabled person who is under 40. A person in the first category would have to pay £200 towards the cost of a mental health hearing, whereas the younger person's contribution would be £300·85. To pay such a sum out of such an income would be unthinkable for a normal person. It is intolerable that we should consider imposing such a burden on a person suffering the stress and strain of mental disability.
The effects of the cuts on people with disabilities are similar. They receive extra income only because the


benefits system recognises the extra living costs that are associated with disability. If we take the approach that we should penalise that group of people, how on earth can we be considered humane, modern, democratic or caring? It is because those concerns are shared by the disability movement in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland that we are grateful that the submissions of disability organisations should be circulated in the House today. Declarations made by hon. Members about those groups of people will be recorded and read, and should be acted on by the Government.
I have no overall solution to the problem of the growing cost of legal aid. The matter has never been investigated properly. However, I have one direct suggestion for the Minister. He should withdraw the motions and have a proper inquiry into the whole question not only of legal aid, both civil and criminal, but of the judicial system and its costs. I do not know why it is so much more costly to defend cases in England than in Scotland. The comparisons are worth making. If the Minister cannot do that, my advice to his hon. Friends, who I believe are genuinely concerned about the issue and about the groups of people who will be affected, is at least to abstain tonight, if they cannot join us in the Lobby to defeat the Government.

Mr. James Pawsey: I listened with considerable interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It was an especially thoughtful speech and I congratulate him on it. I was interested in his passing reference to the ombudsman and I believe that he was right to make that reference. I believe, as I am sure other hon. Members agree, that the ombudsman has a part to play in this area. I find it significant that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), who is sitting in his usual place in the Chamber, played a prominent part this morning in the activities of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which discussed the ombudsman. Mr. William Reed could do much to assist the House on matters relating not only to the health service, but to a wide range of other issues, such as the Legal Aid Board.
In considering the future of legal aid, it is necessary first to look at the nation's economic position. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget statement that we face a deficit of £35 billion this year, which will rise to £50 billion next year. We all know that the reason is a major recession and we all know that recessions squeeze Government revenues both ways. They reduce the amount coming in and they increase the amount spent on benefits. Given that position, it is necessary to take a long, hard look at the cost of legal aid.
The House will be aware that the cost of legal aid has risen dramatically. In 1988–89, the cost was £475 million. Four years later, it is well over £1 billion—a rise of about 130 per cent. Revised estimates for this year already show a substantial increase on that enormous figure. Like all other hon. Members, I understand the importance of legal aid. Without it, justice would be denied to a substantial number of those who are worse off, but action is necessary

to curtail the rising cost. Legal aid should not, therefore, be regarded as some form of income support designed exclusively for the convenience of the legal profession.

Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has sat through the entire debate.

Mr. Llwyd: On the question of necessary action, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the courts could be run more efficiently? When I was in private practice as a solicitor, I appeared in court daily in a rural part of my constituency. I found that there were often five or six other solicitors waiting for their cases to come up. They frequently waited for half a day, which cost the country hundreds of pounds. Should not this matter be taken up immediately at the highest level? Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the practice, in civil listing centres, of listing three active trials per day on the basis of the often wrong premise that two will settle is also stupid, ridiculous and costly and ought to be looked at?

Mr. Pawsey: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes valid points, which I have no doubt will be referred to in my hon. Friend's winding up speech. Clearly, it would have been very helpful to listen to a major contribution from the hon. Gentleman, had time allowed.
It is argued that as solicitors are human there may sometimes be a level of abuse, with adjournments requested and granted by the courts even when they are not strictly necessary. Cases are sometimes disposed of with a slowness which may owe more to legal aid than to legal complexity. I readily accept that the fault is not all on one side. Were the clerk of a court to consider lists more carefully, it might prove possible to avoid having solicitors waiting in court while unrepresented cases are heard.

Mr. David Ashby: And barristers.

Mr. Pawsey: I take my hon. Friend's point.
It should always be remembered that the legal aid clock is ticking at the charge while the solicitor or the barrister is in court. Even if it is not his case, it is a matter of "They also charge who only sit and wait."
The Lord Chancellor itemised four principal factors affecting legal aid. Due to shortage of time, I shall not go through them, but I commend them to the House. These are admirable regulations which should be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Paul Boateng: As a practising barrister, I should first declare an interest.
We shall oppose these regulations in the Lobby because they represent a betrayal of the bipartisan approach to legal aid which has lasted in this House since 1949, when the Lord Chancellor's Department was able to announce, to universal acclamation, proposals
as a result of which no one would be financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or to defend a legal right.
In 1979, during a debate on the outgoing Labour Government's proposals to improve legal aid, it was clear from remarks of the then shadow Solicitor-General—soon to be Solicitor-General Sir Ian Percival—that the


incoming Conservative Government would be committed to a legal aid system such as had been described by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General in 1949, as
a charter for the little man to the British courts.
The Legal Aid Act 1979, under which these regulations are made, is a real charter—not a phoney charter such as has been introduced by the present Government. It is a charter providing that all people, regardless of their means, should have access to the courts. It is not the sort of access that we have heard described—access to the Ritz for someone unable to buy a meal within those sacred portals. The Act provides a right to legal assistance and advice, to ensure that no one is financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or to defend a legal right.
That cross-party consensus is betrayed in these regulations and by the Lord Chancellor, and Conservative Members who vote for the regulations ought to be ashamed of themselves. The right of all people, even the most deprived and regardless of means, to access to the courts ought not to be a matter of party political controversy. Legal advice and assistance for those who need it ought to be a right. In the course of the debate to which I have referred, Ian Percival drew an analogy. He said that this right ought to be comparable to people's right to health care. The then Mr. Percival, the Conservative shadow Solicitor-General of the day and Solicitor-General-to-be, said:
Just as it was unthinkable that an accident victim's injuries should be untreated through inability to pay his doctor, so he should not be prevented through lack of funds from pursuing his just remedies at law."—[Official Report, 30 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 841.]
Mr. Percival was right then, and we are right in our opposition to these regulations.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Hon. Members will have seen early-day motion 1726, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), myself and other hon. Members, concerning benzodiazepine cases. Across the country, there are about 18,000 such people in great hardship. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take a fresh look at such cases and at the way in which multi-party actions are handled? Does he agree that, in any review, the House should look very carefully at the possibility in such cases of the introduction of no-fault liability? That might assist—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The time available for the debate is limited, and this is a very long intervention.

Mr. Boateng: There is certainly scope for taking up the issues raised by that important early-day motion. It is possible, not least in the area of multi-party actions, to make some savings in terms of legal aid and to provide better protection from those affected by oppressive action.

Dr. Liam Fox: The hon. Gentleman made a point about limited funds. The funds for the national health service are not unlimited. Does the Labour party believe that funds for legal aid should be unlimited? If not, what limit would it set?

Mr. Boateng: In this House it is customary, when someone has given way, to show a little more grace than the hon. Gentleman has shown. However, I shall respond in kind. We believe that it is as wrong for health to be

rationed in the way that the Conservative Government have rationed it as it is for access to justice to be rationed, as they propose to do under these regulations.
It is important that we put the interests of the consumer above all other considerations. Of course we should take note of the question of remuneration and of costs. It is important that we seek ways of achieving efficiency in these areas, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) indicated, but it is important also to look at how the interests of the consumer are affected by these regulations.
Like many other hon. Members on both sides, I expect, I have received letters from numerous solicitors—not only legal practitioners, but social work practitioners and others involved in this area—as well as from people in receipt of legal aid. Perhaps the most striking of those contributions came from a firm of solicitors called Daniel and Harris, which practises in north-west London. On behalf of solicitors who represent not the fat cats of the Queen's Bench division and their Fleet street employers —important though that area of law undoubtedly is and as erudite as the contribution from the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was—but the poorest and most disadvantaged, that firm stated:
The majority of our clients do not choose to go to law. Battered women do not have a choice about taking injunction proceedings to protect themselves and their children. Local authority tenants do not have a choice about defending possession proceedings, often for rent arrears that have arisen because of the council's failure to pay itself housing benefit. The homeless do not have a choice about challenging the council's decision to refuse to house them. The social and human costs of the Lord Chancellor's proposals are enormous. The proposals are mean, short-sighted and unjust.
The people concerned in the field share that view without exception.
Although the proposals are unsatisfactory, it is no wonder that they fail to meet the interests of justice when we consider how they came into being. The proposals do not stem from research carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department into cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Opposition Members, and, I hope, hon. Members in all parts of the House, want that research to be carried out. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) have said, we want a thorough and comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness or otherwise of the legal aid system. To go beyond that, we would like a broad view taken of the whole of our criminal and civil justice system to see how it can be made more consumer friendly and how it can deliver the goods more effectively to people seeking justice.
The proposals do not emanate from that compulsion. They emanate from the Treasury. The origin of the regulations lies in the Treasury and in the desire to save money at the expense of justice. That is no basis on which to proceed, and we shall oppose the regulations for that reason.
The impact of the regulations on a particular section of the community which has not been mentioned very much in the debate causes particular concern and is illustrative of a wider problem in respect of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which deals specifically with the green form and advice by way of representation. The people about whom I am concerned here are those who require the assistance of the legal advice


and aid scheme when dealing with issues of mental health and care in the community. As a result of those regulations, many of those people will slip through the net. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) reminded the House of the Lord Chancellor's stated concerns in that area and his reference to the importance of a safety net to ensure that people do not just slip through the system as a result of the regulations. We are entitled to ask where that safety net is. What proposals are being introduced today to show that consideration has been given to that area?
I will give a brief example of the impact of the regulations in respect of mental health. Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 will give carers and users of services legal rights to assessment from 1 April. From that date, too, however —it is ironic that it should happen on the same day—many of those people will be unable to afford the advice of a solicitor to enforce those rights. What is the point of giving rights with one hand while taking away the means of enforcing those rights with the other? That is unfair and it is not right. The House should reflect that in the Lobby tonight.
The problems do not end there. Let us consider the impact of the regulations on a person of modest means —I make no apology for joining my colleagues in emphasising that particular aspect of the regulations—and particularly the way in which they affect women. Time and again, women are disadvantaged. I have an example of that from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. I will describe the lady in question as Ann T. She used to work as a part-time cleaner, but she is unable to work as she was badly injured by a motorist. Her husband earns £126 a week. She is currently entitled to legal advice under the green form, with a contribution of £12, so that she can be advised in respect of a possible claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau. Under the proposals, she will not be entitled to any subsidised or free legal advice or assistance. We have heard nothing from Conservative Members to show that people like Ann T. will be given any consideration in the regulations.
We shall oppose the regulations. They are a denial of justice. We intend to fight them tooth and nail now, and we shall continue to do so.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): In the 14 minutes left to me, I will endeavour to reply to the many points that have been made in the debate. I hope that the House will bear with me and not think me graceless if, in those circumstances, I take no interventions.
May I first of all congratulate the Home Affairs Select Committee and its learned Chairman, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), on their report. I thank my hon. and learned Friend and tell him that I have taken note of his remarks on conditional fees, private legal insurance, ADR—alternative dispute resolution—and small claims procedures.
May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on his thoughtful speech, which brought the proceedings of the Home Affairs Select Committee to life here in the Chamber. However, I would

not wish to raise his hopes on rapid progress on those matters of co-operation with the professions which have been on the agenda of the efficiency commission since 1986. Together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), I acknowledge the very remarkable talents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn).

Mrs. Roche: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his congratulations to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Given those congratulations, may I remind him of the Committee's recommendation that
the Government commit itself to restoring cuts in eligibility in real terms when compensatory savings are found, and that it set a long term goal of ensuring that citizens have access to advice and assistance either free or at a price they can afford"?
Will the Minister give that assurance?

Mr. Taylor: The cost penalty of allowing that intervention is probably a matter of regret. However, I promise the hon. Lady that I will very carefully consider that. In fact, having read the Select Committee report once, I will re-read it. I cannot say fairer than that.
I was addressing my remarks to the very unusual talents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. He said that expenditure on civil legal aid in Scotland has dropped. I am afraid that I must tell him that there has been a large surge in civil legal aid expenditure in Scotland over the past year—almost £24 million now compared with £16·5 million in 1991–92.
Several hon. Members spoke about improving the efficiency of court procedures. There is a Standing Committee operating in Scotland to that end and there is the royal commission in England and Wales. I am sure that all who follow these events look forward with interest to their results.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) looked for further instruments of control. I invite him to share our thinking in anticipation of standard fees, franchising and fixed hourly rates in non-matrimonial cases, alongside his proper hopes for alternative dispute resolution.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Birmingham) and others spoke of the vulnerabilities in certain circumstances of women. It is important to remember that for civil legal aid for women facing domestic violence, it is likely, where a husband or wife have contrary interests—where their means are separately assessed—that, women in those circumstances will be among the least affected by the changes and will be ready candidates for an emergency legal aid certificate.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that I shall be more than glad to look at the difficulties to which she referred with the Legal Aid Board and I shall be happy if she will pursue those matters with me and my Department.
I must tell the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I pronounced his constituency incorrectly; I shall content myself with referring to it simply as Kilmarnock. He detected the increase in Scottish expenditure as a blip. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary explained, the caseload, measured by grants of legal aid, which will fuel future expenditure, has continued and is continuing to increase inexorably in Scotland.
In 1979, the cost of legal aid was less than £100 million. In the year which ends today, it will be £1·1 billion. Over the past four years alone, legal aid expenditure has risen by 130 per cent. That cannot be allowed to continue. If it were to continue, expenditure would be nearly £2 billion by the mid-1990s.
The measures which are contained in the instruments that are before the House will help to contain the large and rapid growth in expenditure. But in doing so, they will safeguard access to justice to the greatest extent possible and will target the available money to where it is most needed.
It is important to remember that there is no question of legal aid being cut. Expenditure will rise by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. over the next three years to £1·528 billion in 1995–96. Over the same period, we expect the number of "acts of assistance"—that is, grants of legal aid or advice and assistance—to rise from 3·4 million in the current year to over 4 million. That is an increase approaching 25 per cent. In 1979–80, there were fewer than 1 million acts of assistance. The legal aid scheme is not being destroyed. It is continuing to grow.
It would be wrong to deny—and we have not sought to hide—that, as a result of the changes, fewer people will take advantage of legal aid than otherwise would have been the case. But the figures that I have given put into context the suggestions that the changes will affect as many as 14 million people. Clearly, it is nonsense to suggest that 14 million people will drop out of a scheme that helps just over 3 million people.
Let us explore that by looking in turn at civil legal aid, criminal legal aid and advice and assistance. In calculating disposable income—we talk about disposable income and that is important—for legal aid purposes, allowances are made for tax and national insurance, dependants, community charge, which in future will be council tax, housing costs, being rent or mortgage, water and sewerage charges and upkeep and insurance, work-related expenses, being fares, subscriptions to trade unions or professional associations, and the cost of child minding. In addition, assessing officers have discretion to allow other expenses, of which repayments of loan for home improvements and school fees are examples. That is a pretty hefty list of items to be discounted in determining disposable income.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that I shall regret it, but I give way to my hon. Friend.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Put like that, my hon. Friend deserves to regret it. In fact, he probably will not, because I am simply asking him to confirm what the Lord Chancellor said and what has always been said—that disability allowances are also allowable.

Mr. Taylor: I think that is right—[interruption.] I read the litany once. I am not sure that the House wants me to read it all over again.
The amending regulations provide that from 12 April, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, constant attendance allowance paid as an increase to a disablement pension and any payment out of the social fund will be disregarded in the calculation of disposable income for advice and assistance. Those are additional disregards

which bring advice and assistance into line with legal aid. That additional help recognises in particular the needs of those with disabilities.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that explanation.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that I have been able to retrieve my apparent lack of grace and I thank my hon. Friend for asking an extremely helpful question.
It has been argued that the changes are unnecessary. It has been suggested that because there has been in recent months a fall in the caseload of magistrates courts and a fall in the volume of criminal legal aid orders, the necessary savings will be found without any changes. But the Lord Chancellor is committed to expenditure targets not only for 1993–94 but for the further two years of the public expenditure survey. We cannot change plans on the basis of what may prove to be merely a blip in the trend of criminal business.
It has also been suggested that civil legal aid and personal injury litigation in particular are self-financing. That is not the case. Civil legal aid as a whole carries a net cost to the legal aid fund and, although the recovery of costs is relatively high in personal injury cases, so too does that category of case.
The Lord Chancellor and I appreciate the sincerity of the arguments which have been put to us, not least by the professions. However, the fact which must be faced is that the Lord Chancellor must take steps now to ensure that the expenditure totals to which he is committed until 1995–96 will be achieved. Ifs and buts and maybes will not do. We need to be certain that expenditure will be brought under control. The changes in the regulations will provide the required certainty.
But in attempting to achieve that control, we have done all that we can to preserve access to legal services. The scope of the legal aid scheme is unchanged: legal aid and advice and assistance will continue to cover the range of legal problems which it now covers. Almost half all households will be eligible for civil legal aid. That is not a bad poor man's lawyer. More than a fifth will be eligible for free legal aid and the same number will be eligible for advice and assistance. Criminal legal aid will be largely unaffected. Over the next three years, expenditure will grow by over 30 per cent. and the volume of legal aid business will grow by 25 per cent. We shall, of course, keep all that under review.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I will not give way to my hon. and learned Friend at this stage. To do so would be even more hazardous. I am sorry that he did not hear my earlier remarks and those of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary about the great talent that he has and how seldom we find that he is mistaken in his contributions to our debates, although he managed it today.
Working within the priorities set for public expenditure, we have had to set our priorities for legal aid. We have planned for significant growth and we have targeted the available money to where it is most needed. We still have a legal aid system of which we can be proud. It is arguably the best in the world and arguably the most expensive, too. But, as the Lord Chancellor said, every pound that is spent on legal aid is a pound that cannot be


spent on housing, education, transport or the health service. This is a debate about priorities and we have taken a responsible position on the priorities.
I shall end with a quotation from Lord Williams of Mostyn, who said, since the autumn statement:
Ours is probably the most generous system of legal aid in the world.
He is a former chairman of the Bar Council and he speaks for Labour in the other place. I agree with him and I commend his words to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 259.

Division No. 226]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Ancram, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Bates, Michael
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Freeman, Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butcher, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Colvin, Michael
Hague, William


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Conway, Derek
Hampson, Dr Keith





Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, John


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knighl, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Miiligan, Stephen
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (Wants NW)
Trend, Michael


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian






Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Walden, George
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dalyell, Tam


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Alton, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Enright, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Berry, Dr. Roger
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Boyce, Jimmy
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Keith
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gapes, Mike


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garrett, John


Burden, Richard
George, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Cann, Jamie
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gunnell. John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hall, Mike


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Harvey, Nick


Connarty, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hlnchliffe, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cox, Tom
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Bob
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hoyle, Doug


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)





Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hutton, John
Parry, Robert


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pike, Peter L.


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prescott, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Radice, Giles


Khabra, Piara S.
Randall, Stuart


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Reid, Dr John


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Leighton, Ron
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lewis, Terry
Rooker, Jeff


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McMaster, Gordon
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Alice
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Peter
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Tipping, Paddy


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Watson, Mike


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Welsh, Andrew


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mudie, George
Wray, Jimmy


Mullin, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony


Murphy, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshlre)



O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Hara, Edward
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Olner, William
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved,

That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions on the remaining motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang, pursuant to order [26 March].

Resolved,

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Resolved,

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Resolved,

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11 th March, be approved. —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Resolved,

That the draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Deputy Speak: then put the Question on a motion in the name of Mr. John Smith.

Motion made, and Question put:—

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 790), dated 17th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 301.

Division No. 227]
[7.16 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cohen, Harry


Allen, Graham
Connarty, Michael


Alton, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corston, Ms Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Cummings, John


Battle, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dafis, Cynog


Bell, Stuart
Dal yell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Betts, Clive
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Blunkett, David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Boyce, Jimmy
Dixon, Don


Boyes, Roland
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Enright, Derek


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Stephen
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fraser, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fyfe, Maria


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Garrett, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gerrard, Neil


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.





Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gordon, Mildred
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gould, Bryan
Morley, Elliot


Graham, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hall. Mike
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hanson, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hardy, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Harman, Ms Harriet
Olner, William


Harvey, Nick
O'Neill, Martin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Henderson, Doug
Parry, Robert


Heppell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pike, Peter L.


Hinchliffe, David
Pope, Greg


Hoey, Kate
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Home Robertson, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoon, Geoffrey
Purchase, Ken


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hutton, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Ingram, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rooker, Jeff


Janner, Greville
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Keen, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Short, Clare


Khabra, Piara S.
Simpson, Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Livingstone, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Steinberg, Gerry


Loyden, Eddie
Stevenson, George


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stott, Roger


McAllion, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAvoy, Thomas
Straw, Jack


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McFall, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McKelvey, William
Tipping, Paddy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Tyler, Paul


Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McMaster, Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert N


McWilliam, John
Watson, Mike


Madden, Max
Welsh, Andrew


Mahon, Alice
Wicks, Malcolm


Mandelson, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Winnick, David


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John
Wright, Dr Tony


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Mr. Eric Illsley.






NOES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elletson, Harold


Aitken, Jonathan
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arbuthnot, James
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fabricant, Michael


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gallie, Phil


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garnier, Edward


Body, Sir Richard
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David





Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whittingdale, John


Pickles, Eric
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Redwood, John
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Question accordingly negatived.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CHILD SUPPORT

That the draft Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

LAND REGISTRY

That the draft Land Registry Trading Fund Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

LAND REGISTRATION (COSTS)

That the draft Land Registration (Determination of Costs) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Agricultural Prices

[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 4620/92 and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18th March 1993, on temporary national compensation for farmers in Germany, European Community Documents Nos. 4821/92, on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco and on the 1992 tobacco harvest, 5018/93, on the allocation of quotas for certain varieties of tobacco in Greece, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18th March 1993, on the progress made by Greece, Spain and Italy in the effective application of the milk quota scheme and on the situation on the market for milk and milk products, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22nd March, on national aid for sheep farming in France.]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4608/93, on the prices for agricultural products and on related measures, 1993–94; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the price proposals which takes account of the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers, builds upon the 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reforms, and takes full account of the realities of the budgetary situation.
The prospects for the farming industry are brighter than they have been for several years. I think that the House will agree that the first reason for that is that the uncertainty which has hung over the industry for so long has been lessened by the completion of the major part of the proposals for common agricultural policy reform. That provides a framework for the development of a competitive industry for the rest of the century. It gives farmers the stability they need to plan ahead. There is a great deal more to do, but for the major products that so dominate the British farming scene, we have laid the pattern for the coming decade.
The agreement contains several positive features. By cutting prices and reducing the role of intervention, it will bring farming nearer to the market and encourage farmers to pay much greater attention to the demands of consumers. It will reduce the resource costs of agricultural support in the Community. Overall, the costs imposed by the CAP on the consumer and taxpayer will be lower as a result of the agreement. The agreement marks a major step forward in the integration of environmental considerations into the CAP.
A last but important element of the agreement is that it does not discriminate against our farmers. The burden of reform will be borne by all producers—not, as the Commission proposed, simply by larger, more efficient farmers. Many people, including Labour Members, openly doubted that that was possible. They could not have been more wrong. None of the Commission's proposals which would have discriminated against larger producers was carried through to the final agreement. All the producers will benefit from the various compensation payments which now constitute such an important part of the reformed CAP. It was essential for the future of our farming industry that we won that point.
This year we shall begin to see what the agreement means in real terms. Whereas previously 7 per cent. of spending on the CAP came to Britain, now 9 per cent. will come to Britain. If the MacSharry proposals had been accepted, Britain would have received less than 7 per cent. So the increase that has been achieved by the negotiations is considerable. It will be seen in the returns that farmers will have this year and in future years.
In 1992 we also saw a welcome recovery in farm incomes. There is no doubt that farmers have done less well year by year. They often look at the rest of the country and point out that increases in food prices have been much outdone by increases in the prices of other products. It is surprising that, despite the excellence of food in Britain, every year a smaller proportion of the household budget is spent on food. It is a constant concern of farmers that their work is less respected and encouraged by the rest of the community.
Nevertheless, farm incomes rose by some 11 per cent. in 1992. That improvement was from a higher level than we predicted last year. The recovery is from a low base. Farm incomes have been under severe pressure in recent years and in real terms remain below the levels achieved 10 years ago. Those in the more exuberant organs of the press who tend to believe that farmers are doing extremely well should look at their own incomes and ask themselves whether they would like it if their income was lower in real terms than 10 years ago. It is important to make that clear lest people run away with the idea that the farmers are back to the income levels which were expected in the past.
However, there are encouraging signs for the future. The fall in interest rates is a major boost to many farmers.. Overall the industry's interest charges fell by 16 per cent. last year. Currently interest rates are at their lowest level for 15 years. Inflation is also down. Farmers are affected by inflation perhaps more than most other sections of the community, for they find it much more difficult to get back from the marketplace the inflationary additions which they have to pay on their inputs and their wages.
The farming industry has also benefited significantly from the green pound devaluations that have taken place since September, with support prices increasing by some 23 per cent. I wonder whether we might concentrate for one moment on the increase in the green pound and its effect on farmers.
In the past those in the sheep industry have reasonably groused that the arrangements for changes in the green pound have always been organised in such a way that they had to wait a whole year before they received the benefit. It is important to recognise that we ensured that the changes took place early enough for sheep farmers to benefit a year earlier than most would have expected.
So much of the extra money that will go to sheep farmers, especially to those in the less-favoured areas, has come not from the automatic reaction of the green pound but from the specific decision of a Government determined to protect the farmers' interests. As a result of the changes, farmers can be cautiously optimistic about their prospects for the year ahead. However, it is not feasible to look much further into the future because it contains other uncertainties, albeit fewer than previously.
The industry needs to make the most of the opportunities that exist now, using this better time to prepare for periods that may be more difficult in the future. We should take advantage of the competitive level of sterling. Already, exports of sheepmeat were up in 1992 by

30 per cent. Exports of pigmeat, in which we often think that we do not do so well, were up by 25 per cent. The industry must build on those successes and make itself fit for the rigours of the future.
We now have to implement the reformed CAP schemes. I know that there is considerable anxiety among farmers about the administrative burdens which they fear that the schemes will impose upon them. I am cheered that several people, including those who are not at all happy with the place of Britain in Europe or with Maastricht and the like, have said to me that they are pleased with the quality and care with which we have produced the documentation and forms that farmers have to fill in. That is a great tribute to staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have brought farmers in at every point to ensure that the forms are as they would wish them to be—as simple as possible.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the forms. I put a towel round my head and went through them last night. I thought that it was going to be awful. But they are extremely well designed, simple to follow and virtually foolproof. My right hon. Friend will be glad to know that the chairman of my local county farmers union has gone on record today saying emphatically that farmers must get the forms in by the crucial date of 15 May and no bones about it. I am convinced that farmers will be able to fill in the forms without making mistakes.

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that, whatever their concerns and wherever they stand on the issue of European integration, they must ensure that every farmer returns the forms before 15 May. That is crucial. A great deal of money hangs on it. There is almost £1,000 million this year and there will be almost £1,500 million next year. That money needs to come through.
There is a second important date to which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) would have referred, if she had had time. We have put the date on a special piece of paper inside the package that will come to every farmer this weekend. I hope that every farmer will have it by Monday; some will have it on Saturday. The special piece of paper reminds farmers of the second date, which is 17 April. That is the last date on which Ordnance Survey can guarantee in its one-stop system to provide the maps that farmers need.
I hope that most farmers have sought the maps already. Anyone who has not done so should do so at once. The quicker that farmers obtain the maps, the quicker they can fill in and return the forms so that we have some chance of checking that they are right. I hope that there will be every opportunity to help farmers fill in the forms. Our regional service centres are staffed up to give advice. But again, the quicker that we receive the requirements, the quicker we shall be able to answer them. [Interruption.] It is all right for Opposition Members who will not have to fill in the forms. They will not receive the money and they would not lose out if they had not filled in the forms. I know that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will go round his farmers making sure that they fill in the forms properly.
The penalty for mistakes in filling in the forms could be severe. But we are talking about a great deal of money. We are determined that the same rules will be carried through


in every country of the European Community. I have looked at the forms in most other countries and our forms are very similar. However, the explanatory documentation that we have issued is much clearer. It is all in one place. Farmers will not have to scrabble around for different booklets and so on. This has been an example to others. I suspect that other countries will follow us in the future. I assure the House that the same information will not have to be produced next year. We hope to use a database to send the documentation to every farmer in the country, who will then only have to update it. That will make a major difference.
We are doing our best to keep the demands on farmers as low as possible. However, we also want to meet their major requirement, which is that they should not be asked to do in Britain what farmers are not asked to do elsewhere. That is why the forms are standard throughout the Community. The Commission and the Council will be able to check whether the forms are properly filled out and, if they are not, the farmers will not get the money. That will be as true in Italy as it will be in Britain. That will be a major change.
Labour Members who are keen on the European Community—[Laughter.] I understand that those hon. Members are publicly committed to a closer union in Europe and therefore share my attitude to the Community. They would do better if they giggled less and supported more. Many of us spend a great deal of time —[Laughter] When I make a joke, I shall ask hon. Members to laugh. It would help a great deal if we could get the rest of the Community to follow the high standards that we have maintained in Britain. However, I question whether the Community has the same determination as Britain to keep the documentation and the demands at the lowest level. We have therefore asked the new commissioner to consider ways to simplify the rules and he will come forward with proposals. We are also seeking to achieve that through the Council and other available mechanisms.
It is against that background that we should consider the Commission's proposals for price fixing. Quite frankly, they are disappointing. They are largely a roll-over collection of proposals at a time when there is a need for some fairly substantial changes. The reform of the CAP is not complete; we still do not have an up-to-date wine regime, we do not have changes in the sugar regime, we have not completed the work that we need to do on the beef regime and we still have the enormous expense of intervention hanging over the market. It is regrettable that the Commission has not even brought forward its proposals on fruit and vegetables, olive oil, rice and cotton. There is a need to reduce expenditure in all those sectors. Unless we do that, we will face real difficulty in paying the bill and meeting our expenditure within the guidelines.
We have made substantial progress in the reform agreement on integrating environmental considerations into the CAP. I should have liked there to have been more and I still want cross-compliance. I think that, in the end, the public will demand that, where the taxpayer pays out money, it must be to farmers who practise environmentally friendly farming. The farmers who are doing that—and

they are the vast majority—will increasingly demand that their peers come into line, because the small number who do not farm in that manner harm the reputation of all.
Earlier today, I spent some time addressing the Association of Small Farmers, when it was brought home to me that the farmers felt considerable concern about their status and reputation, which are not what they were. Part of the reason for that has been the activities of a very small number of farmers and cross-compliance could go a long way to putting that right. If there was a more generalised system of cross-compliance, every suburban dweller and urban liver would know that, at the core of the system, was a concern for the countryside and the environment and a respect for the soil and husbandry.
I fear that the Commission's proposals take too little account of the difficult budgetary position that the Community is likely to face in 1994. With lower estimates of Community GNP, the guideline next year is now expected to be little higher than this year. With the increased costs of CAP reform beginning to have a real impact on the budget of 1994, there are fears that, on current trends, expenditure could be set to exceed the guideline even before the costs of the recent ERM realignments are taken into account. The Edinburgh Council agreed to some easing of the current rules to help with the latter costs, but any increase in the guideline remains out of the question.
In those circumstances, I feel that a prudent price settlement is required. We need now to bring spending under control, because otherwise the decisions later in the year will be much tougher. It is also essential that we do not agree anything that would increase the cost of the CAP. In particular, the agreement reached in December on the reform of the agrimonetary system must not be reopened.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware of the complicated nature of that system. You are no doubt familiar with the way in which the switchover mechanism works. If that has temporarily escaped you, I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington can explain it in detail. The system has an artificial effect on prices in countries with hard, tough currencies. One of the reasons why Germany has been able to maintain its view on the deutschmark is that the German farmer has been protected, because of the switchover mechanism, from the effect of too strong a currency. That is why it was only with the greatest reluctance that we agreed to the mechanism continuing for two years. Now, there is pressure on us to protect countries with strong currencies against even the small effect that the switchover system allows. That we cannot and will not do.
In addition to the price-fixing proposals in the dairy sector, the Commission has presented two reports to the Council. As, to some extent, they overtake the price-fixing proposals, it would be misleading if I did not mention them in the context of the debate. The first report considers the case for the 1 per cent. quota cut for 1993–94 that was provisionally agreed last year. The House will know that it is not the Government's policy to support further cuts in quota. We already produce less butterfat than we need—that has been so for most of the century and we have always imported large quantities of dairy products. A 1 per cent. quota cut has a much greater effect on a country that is 85 per cent. self-sufficient than on countries that produce considerably more than they need. Therefore, I have always believed that a cut in the butter price rather than in


the quota is a better way to deal with these matters. For that reason, I am pleased that the report concludes that the market for milk and milk products has improved and that it proposes that the quota cut should be deferred and reconsidered next year. It also concludes that the butter market is very weak and proposes that the support price for butter should be cut by 5 per cent. for the coming marketing year, rather than the 2·5 per cent. provisionally agreed last year.
The House will recognise that that is another example of the Commission moving towards the United Kingdom's position rather than the position taken by other Community countries. That small group of hon. Members who still find themselves unhappy and uncomfortable within the European Community should recognise the degree to which decisions now being made are the same decisions that Britain would have made were it making them on its own, outside the Community.
There has been a fundamental change in the way in which the Community is moving, not least on agriculture. We should consider how the CAP is now operated. At a meeting earlier today someone said to me, "It is surprising how far we have moved away from the system that we took on when we joined the Community, towards the system which we once had and which was much closer to the market and to the mechanisms that we know to be good." Those are real victories for the United Kingdom.
The second report covers the implementation of the milk quota system in Spain, Greece and Italy. I hope that the House will distinguish between those three countries because they all have different issues at stake. There is no doubt, for example, that if Spain had had accurate production figures in the first place, it would have had a higher quota. Spain is, in any event, a deficit producer. It now has accurate figures and has already begun to cut its production. It is important for us that Spain should do that: the less that Spain produces, the greater will be our opportunity to oppose a cut in quota and the more markets there will be for over-production in France.
We have said that the Spanish will be given no help with their quota until they have made the necessary cuts. One million tonnes must be taken off the system before we can accept that Spain should have the quota that she would have secured historically.
Greece has a deficit in regard to the production of fresh milk. It cannot import from the rest of the Community and does not produce enough milk for its own internal needs. Obviously, Greece should be able to produce enough for fresh milk consumption; that is entirely sensible and does not interfere with our markets.
In Italy, the issue is much sharper. For years, the Italians promised us that the quota system was being implemented; later, it became clear that it was not. I have therefore made it plain to the Commission and the Council —as have a sufficient number of my colleagues—that we will consider very carefully before providing any help on the quota front. In its first report, the Commission says that Italy has not yet done what it must do before the Commission can make a recommendation on the basis that Italy has taken the necessary 1 million tonnes of production out of the system. We shall want clear proof of that.
I have made clear my feelings about the way in which Italy has dealt with these matters. I can, however, give one piece of good news. This year, for the first time, the Italian Government reported their own failures to the

Commission. Some of the popular press said how appalling it was to discover the perpetration of fraud in, for example, the growing of durum wheat; what was not mentioned was the fact that that fraud was detected by the Italian Government. Satellite pictures were taken on the Italian Government's demand and they accepted that there would have to be a reduction in the money that they received.
That is a big change, which must be supported. I have seen no such development in my earlier dealings with the Italians. I think it only fair to draw attention to the change, given the tough way in which we must approach such matters. I hope to be able to discuss it with the new Italian Minister, who is the fifth with whom I have had to deal in recent times. I am sorry about the demise of the last Minister, in circumstances of which I know nothing; for the first time, an Italian Minister appeared to be on top of the job and to be getting on with the business of dealing with these matters. I shall, however, chase his replacement: I hope that he, too, will be on top of the job, with none of the attendant disadvantages.
There is already a success to report. I found it intolerable that the Commission presented proposals on vining peas, for example, when they were not supposed to be introduced to the arable area scheme and then took them out after people thought that they would be included. That left us all in a difficult position, legally and morally. The same seemed likely to happen with linseed; that would have been very serious for farmers in Britain and Germany, the two countries in which linseed matters most.
We have persuaded the Commission to announce that there will be no question of linseed's inclusion in the arable area scheme this year and that has set many farmers' minds at rest. We secured that assurance in the teeth of opposition and I believe that it shows that the Commission and, indeed, the Community are becoming much closer to the realities of life.
The decisions that we make each year in the annual price fixing are important to farmers, but they are concerned with the detailed workings of the common agricultural policy. In focusing on the detail, we must not lose sight of the larger picture—the reasons why we need a thriving farming industry and the reasons why that objective merits support from both Government and Opposition.
We need farmers to produce food. We may have surpluses in the European Community, but we would be very foolish to assume that surplus will never again be followed by shortage. The world is not as it has been in the past and it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which shortages might arise. There need not be much climatic change, or a great increase in the taste for "temperate" food in developing nations—which is one of the first consequences of improved living standards. There need not be much effect on the speed with which technological change is introduced, because of environmental questions, for a change to take place in the whole way in which the supply of food is kept ahead of the population increase.
Why, in past years, were the gurus wrong—all those who told us that world population would change the patterns of life, and that the battle beteen south and north would replace the east-west battle? Because the population increase was outpaced by the rapid technological advances in husbandry. Such a result is possible only if the speed of development is maintained. Now, more and more people have real concerns, insisting that we take longer to license,


take more care in what we do and are more sure of what we let into the atmosphere. Such action changes the pattern fundamentally.
I do not think it helpful to suggest that we rest on the assurance that there will always be a food surplus. I cannot say when the change will take place; indeed, I cannot be absolutely sure that it will take place. I know, however, that no Government or potential Government can sensibly leave the feeding of their people to such a hazard. It is essential that Britain's land continues to produce food and to be available for increased production; it is also essential for farmers to be able to bring about that increased production should the need come about.
It is no longer sufficient, however, for farmers simply to produce food. In the past, producing enough food to feed the whole population was an achievement in itself; nowadays, people want more. Consumers are used to a wide choice of foods and, to compete, our farmers need to produce what consumers want at attractive prices. I still hear farmers say that they do not want to produce a particular type of potato, or a particular weight of lamb, because they do not like it—although the customer demands it. In the end, it does not matter what the producer likes; what matters is what the customer demands. The producer can obtain a price—certainly, a premium price—only if he adjusts his production to meet the needs of the market. The farming industry must be focused increasingly on the market. It must be able to add value, diversify into new enterprises, lower costs and sell its products; it must be able to take a growing share of home and export markets.
We also need farmers if we are to retain our landscape and the countryside for which we care. That countryside was created by 2,000 years of farming and only by farming can we keep it—with all its glorious variety—for the next 2,000 years. It must be farmed in ways that respect its traditional characteristics and the natural environment. The great majority of farmers already farm in that way: they take pride in their role as custodians of the countryside.
That rôle deserves public support and is increasingly receiving it. Where we ask farmers to go beyond good agricultural practice to benefit the environment, it is surely right for the general public to pay. People cannot be asked to do what is expensive for the general good unless they are provided with some help. That is the principle that underlies the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, which was pioneered in this country—not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—and has now been extended to the rest of the Community.
This is one of the ways in which Britain is leading the Community. All the major environmental schemes in Europe bear the stamp of Britain: we led the way. We persuaded Europe to make such measures the centrepiece of its CAP reform and we are generally regarded as the country that uses the most practical means to bring together the needs of the environment and the demand for food production. I took it a step further last week by announcing proposals to implement the Community's new agri-environment regulations. We are planning to build on the success of the ESA Scheme, with proposals for six new ESAs, and to introduce a number of new schemes,

including measures to conserve moorland, to promote improved access to the countryside and to encourage organic farming.
I well remember that when I first joined the Ministry as Minister of State I was not allowed to use the words "organic farming". I remember finding it rather difficult to make an appointment with the Soil Association. I am not suggesting that the Government should say that organic farming is better than conventional farming; I am merely saying that Government should provide the opportunity for the choice to be made.
We are a nation that believes in choice and the pioneering work of my former constituent, Lady Balfour, who began the work of the Soil Association but who died recently, taught an attitude to the land that goes much further than the narrow tenets of the Soil Association. It was the concept of respecting the soil. I visited a farm that is farmed by one of our major farming companies—a very efficient outfit—and was extremely pleased when the first thing that the farm manager told me was, "That is where it is made: it is that soil, that tillage. Getting that right and respecting it is how we make the difference between profit and loss." That attitude should go much further than those who, properly, are the heralds of a different way of looking at the future of the countryside.
The proposals will add £31 million a year to the Ministry's expenditure on environmental schemes by 1995–96, bringing the total to more than £100 million by that time. When one recalls the small amounts that were possible when we piloted the first Bill through Parliament six or seven years ago, one realises that there has been a huge change throughout the country. No doubt the Labour party will suggest that more might be done—it did so at that time—but we have tried to build on our achievements and will continue to do so.
We can honourably say that every scheme that we have introduced has been a success and we have been able to extend it because of success rather than fear for its future because of failure.
I believe that the proposals will be money well spent if they contribute to the preservation of our countryside. We all need that countryside because the unfortunate fact is that the majority of our citizens live in towns and suburbs. They need the countryside for their green lung, which will be increasingly essential as the tempo of urban life accelerates. Rural life remains the guardian of continuing values. We would all be the poorer if they were lost. Farming families are at the heart of rural life. To produce food, to conserve the beauties of our countryside and to sustain working rural communities we need farmers farming the land. That belief is at the heart of the Government's policies on farming and rural society.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from '1993–94' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the reduction in support prices contained in 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reforms; opposes the introduction of rotational set aside which will damage the rural economy and environment; regrets that the reforms do not adequately address the failures of the Common Agricultural Policy including its exorbitant cost to EC taxpayers; and calls upon the Government to press for a Common Agricultural Policy which breaks the link between subsidies and


production, rewards environmentally sensitive farming, reduces the cost of food to the consumer and encourages employment in agriculture and the countryside.'.
I agree with the closing remarks of the Minister. Indeed, all hon. Members would agree about the importance of the agriculture industry to our people. It is important because of the farm gate value of its output and because of the number of farmers and farm workers who are directly dependent on it.
It is even more important than that, because it provides the raw material for our food industries, which represent a large amount of investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Furthermore, the agriculture industry, in most rural parts of Britain, represents the core of the rural economy. Few employed in the industry are farm workers, but many jobs are dependent on agriculture. There can be no dispute about the importance of agriculture to our economy.
The Minister acknowledged—I was pleased that he did so—that the 1980s have not been easy for the agriculture industry. The Government cannot shirk their responsibility for these hard times. Britain's farmers did not see any of the Lawson boom. The latter half of the 1980s was disastrous for the industry, and only now are we beginning to see some slight recovery. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, that recovery still has not restored us to our position at the beginning of the 1980s.
The Minister said that the main factor for the increased optimism in the industry was that the CAP reforms had been settled. Who is he kidding? He does not believe that the MacSharry reforms are leading to increased confidence and hope in the British industry. He knows, like every other hon. Member, that the industry is looking forward to a better future because of black Wednesday—Britain's forced withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism, the devaluation of sterling and the consequent increases in support prices. That is the first, second and third reason why British agriculture can, we hope, look forward to higher returns, which we want to see translated into more jobs and higher investment.
Last week, we debated the Agriculture Bill, in the course of which the Minister and I referred to the Agriculture Act 1947 and the good old days when we had an agricultural price review and all that the House had to concern itself with was support prices and the bargain struck between the Government and the agriculture industry. In some respects, those were halcyon days, since when things have become so much more complicated. We then had a far better system of support for the British consumer and the industry, but the reality is that the European Community is where all the major decisions on agriculture policy are taken, and have been taken for a long time. That is why this debate is the major agriculture debate in the parliamentary calendar.
I turn now to the documents, some of which the Minister, for reasons which may become obvious, managed to avoid referring to. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but at least two of the documents have something to do with tobacco production. I remind the Minister of what he said a couple of years ago:
It is outrageous that we should subsidise the increased growth of tobacco … when most member states are seeking to reduce the consumption".—[Official Report, 6 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 789.]
He has changed his position a bit since then. On 12 June 1992, he said:

It is not feasible to end … tobacco production."— [Official Report, 12 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 565.]
The Minister avoided the problem this evening simply by making no reference to the tobacco documents which are before the House. As the tobacco regime is costing the European Community about £1 billion per annum, and as the cost of the regime has been ratcheting up every year and was estimated to rise again in 1992, one is entitled to say that the Minister, by failing to refer to that regime, is guilty of a certain degree of complacency.

Mr. Gummer: I should hate the hon. Gentleman to feel that I am complacent. I could easily have said that under this system we are reducing the amount of tobacco which receives support from 460,000 tonnes in 1982 to 350,000 tonnes in 1994. In Greece, 200,000 small farming families are dependent on tobacco production. I believe that what I said on those occasions remains true. It is outrageous that we should be spending that money. We should reduce it—and we are reducing it, but it must be done at a pace which ensures that villages and small communities in southern countries are not wiped out at once. I believe that at the end of a reasonably short period of time there should be no support for tobacco. We are on the way. The measures have been so tough that the Greek Minister has held up many meetings because of the effect on his rural community. We can only move at a pace which takes account of the many livelihoods which depend on tobacco.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He has mentioned some of the points that I was going to make at the end. Tobacco is a labour-intensive sector. It is true that many jobs in southern countries depend on it, but it happens to be the most costly regime per hectare of all the regimes.
My final quotation in this respect is from the British Journal of Addiction. An article written by two authors —one French and one British—states:
The common agricultural policy of the European Community subsidises tobacco production to the tune of … £900 million. This amounts to … £1,700 per minute, and is more in one year than the total amount spent on tobacco subsidies by the US in the last 50 years. The purpose of this policy was to maintain farmers' incomes and adapt community production to demand … The policy has failed. Expenditure has spiralled out of control, production of unmarketable tobacco varieties has risen enormously, and the EC is the world's largest importer of raw tobacco.
Despite the efforts to switch to alternative tobaccos, the regime is a disaster.
We must adopt a position of principle. Yes, we have to support the rural economy of the areas involved, but instead of talking about supporting the tobacco industry it is high time that the Government considered ways of enabling tobacco producers to move to other economic activities so that they are provided with alternative employment.
Did the right hon. Gentleman omit to refer to the document on national aid for sheep farming? I believe that he mentioned the document which provides for a continuation of temporary aid for the German agriculture industry when talking about the switch-over mechanism. I do not wish to make a major point of it, but does he accept that the Council of Ministers should make it pretty difficult for such national measures to be passed? If there is to be a level playing field and a common agricultural policy, it is not in the interests of our industry for other Governments who are prepared to spend their own money


to be allowed to provide additional, large-scale subsidies over and above those available to our producers under the CAP.
The Minister referred to the documents on milk, especially the milk quota. He seemed to be trying to talk tough on the Italian milk quota, but if hon. Members take the trouble to read his words I do not think that they will find he was being so very resolute. Milk quotas were introduced in 1984, and the Italian Government have failed to operate the system for all those years. It would be utterly unacceptable if the Italian Government were to receive an increase in their quota as a bribe for implementing the system from now on. I should have thought it sensible for any increase in the Italian quota to depend on at least one year's operation of the existing arrangements, which they should have been operating since 1984. That is a very important issue for this country.
I was rather surprised that the Minister made a great deal of our lack of self-sufficiency. I do not disagree, but the problem with the British milk quota is that we have a very competitive industry. It is generally accepted, especially with the increase in support prices and the devaluation of the pound, that we would be able to increase our share of milk production in the European Community if there were no milk quotas but a genuinely free market, because of the efficiency of our milk processing industry and its scope for expansion.

Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. I find his argument difficult to believe. If we were using all our milk quota for high value products, which were to be found on supermarket shelves in France and Germany, I should be much happier. At the moment, however, we are turning our milk quota into skimmed milk powder which we are exporting at a subsidised price. That is outrageous. It shows that the system does not produce the competitive edge that it should, so the hon. Gentleman's case does not stand up.
I hope that there will be changes in the milk industry so that it will be possible to claim what he claims. Perhaps we can then buy quotas across national borders and do what we should be doing, which is making milk products in the countries with the rain and grass to do so.

Dr. Strang: There is more to the system than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We have a built-in preference in the pricing arrangements for liquid milk in that we have rightly attached a high priority to maintaining higher liquid milk sales. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman disputes the fact that Britain's fundamental climatic advantages, as compared to much of the Community, and the fundamental efficiency of our milk processing companies are such that, if we were operating in a genuinely free market without quotas, we would have more investment and more jobs.
It is indisputable, as many of the dairy companies agree, that investment in many aspects of processing, including those which do not need a great deal of milk, is inhibited because there is concern about obtaining an adequate supply of milk. In a speech at the end of last year, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to agree that it was regrettable that quotas had become a permanent feature of the milk regime. There is an implicit agreement that as part of the MacSharry reforms quotas will continue until the

end of the century. I am not over-enthusiastic about the sale of quotas across national boundaries. I should like to think that Britain would buy the quotas, but I am a little uneasy that some countries, especially France, will find a way of loading the system so that we shall not see the desired movement of quotas to this country.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Would the hon. Gentleman favour the complete free sale of quotas within the United Kingdom?

Dr. Strang: I am in favour of getting away from quotas as soon as we can and of incorporating in the milk support arrangements other ways of maintaining the livelihoods and jobs in our industry. I shall finish with the milk issue because I have much more to say.
We welcome the decision to remove the co-responsibility levy. I was a member of the Labour Government when the levy was introduced in 1977. We opposed it then, and I think that we have been fairly consistent in our opposition to it since. School milk is currently financed from the co-responsibility levy. I hope that the Minister of State will give a clear undertaking that there is no question of school milk being jeopardised in the long term as a result of the removal of the levy and that the Government will accept the obligation to continue the funding.
I will deal briefly with the price proposals. The price proposals for the maor commodities were predetermined by the agreement last year on the MacSharry reforms. The cuts in cereal and beef prices are positive measures. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that reform of the wine and the sugar regimes is of enormous importance because of the huge costs to the overall EC agricultural budget. Our amendment says that there are some positive elements in the reforms, but that judged against the scale of the problem and the enormity of the CAP they are totally inadequate.
To appreciate that fact, we must take a minute or two to remind ourselves of how big a disaster the CAP is and continues to be. It continues to force up food prices and maintain them at an unacceptably high level, imposing high costs on all families in this country, especially on the poorer families who tend to spend a higher proportion of their household budgets on food. The CAP represents a monstrous cost to the taxpayer; the sums of money involved in intervention buying and export refunds are mind-boggling. It damages international trade, and especially the positions of many developing countries, because of the policy of subsidising our surpluses and effectively almost dumping them on world markets. In essence, considering the money that the CAP costs, it fails to provide anything like the support that we should expect for the industry and for employment in rural areas.
I remind the House of the issue of fraud within the CAP. An excellent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities entitled, "The Fight Against Fraud" was published at the end of last year. An interesting study had been carried out on milk refunds and the money spent on them, centring on two companies, described as company A and company B, in two different countries which account for a high proportion–10 per cent.—of all the money spent on milk export refunds. The report showed that the companies had not been audited since 1966 and concluded:
There is strong evidence that fraud and irregularity continue on a large scale, not only in the agricultural sector,


but with the Structural Funds also, and that controls within the system are not sufficiently effective throughout the Community … As things are at present detected fraud is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, and serious dangers will remain until all concerned with the collection, administration, disbursement and use of these funds accept in full the principles of sound financial administration, reporting an audit … Notwithstanding the continuing efforts which have been made, the Committee are convinced that a great deal more needs to be done if fraud and irregularity are to be contained within tolerable limits.
That in itself is a major indictment of the CAP as it stands.
What about the so-called fundamental reforms agreed last year? First, I shall examine briefly the accompanying measures. When the reforms were debated last June people were in the dark about much of the detail of what had been agreed, and much still had to be worked out. I hope that when the Minister of State winds up he will tell us about the early retirement package. Why is it not being applied at all in this country? I do not see that as a rationalisation measure but as a measure whereby older farmers can be helped to move out of the industry and provide opportunities for other farmers; every time that happened, it would mean that another person had been found a job at a time of high unemployment. Secondly, what about the regulation on the forestry measures? I am sure that most of us would agree that they would be positive. What is the Government's attitude?
Thirdly, what about the agri-environment programme? The Minister said quite a lot about that and, as he reminded us, on Friday he announced his proposals to meet the requirements of the programme. It is with some satisfaction over the years that we in the Opposition have seen the importance of the environment dawn on the Government. We support the change that has taken place over the years in their attitude, following the policies adopted by the Labour party. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members read the documents the Labour party has published over the years, they will see that we have led opinion in this country on the environment, and that the Government and the Conservative party have followed.
We must welcome the Minister's proposals, but an increase in his Department's environmental expenditure by only £31 million over three years, in the context of a departmental budget of about £8·5 billion over that period, cannot be said to represent a major shift in priorities. When my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) replies to the debate for the Opposition he will say more about the environmental impact of the changes and of the Government's policy.
Set-aside is the major supply control measure in the reforms, and the Opposition have deliberately singled it out in our amendment, because we do not believe that it is the right policy. We are sceptical about whether it will be effective—certainly about whether it will be as effective as the Government and the Commission try to suggest—in cutting cereal production. We believe that some of its effect will almost certainly be offset by greater intensification by farmers in their reduced acreage.
Of course, we strongly support breaking the link between subsidies and production, but we want the payments to be made for a positive purpose and to provide employment. We do not believe that we can possibly justify spending such huge sums on paying farmers to do nothing and to leave the land fallow. That is not an acceptable system, and we do not believe that it will be acceptable to the British people in the medium to long

term. Rotational set-aside is not an environmentally positive measure and does not provide anything like the environmental benefits that we would like to stem from the policy of reducing cereal acreage in this country. Permanent set-aside is a different matter, into which it would be possible to build more effective environmental benefits, but here we are talking about rotational set-aside. For those reasons, we believe that the policy of set-aside should be opposed in principle.
Some of us were probably rather amused at the Minister's reference to the forms. He seemed to present as some great achievement all those documents that the farmers will have to complete. Yes, perhaps the Minister's civil servants have done quite a good job in producing all those publications—but does he not recognise that the very fact that they have had to go to such lengths, and that so much time and effort will be devoted to the forms, is in itself a fundamental criticism of what the Council of Agriculture Ministers agreed last year? The set-up is utterly indefensible.
If hon. Members have not read it already, I commend to them an article by David Brown, agriculture correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, which says:
More than 240,000 farmers are affected by what is being described as the biggest farm information gathering exercise since the Domesday Book was begun in 1086 …
The National Farmers Union has been running a series of road shows to keep farmers up to date with developments. So far about 30,000 farmers have turned up and thousands more are expected from this weekend.
The Country Landowners Association has established a nationwide network of land agents to give 15 minutes of free advice to its members"—
[Interruption.] I am quoting from The Daily Telegraph; I thought that Conservative Members might appreciate that. The article continues:
While assuring that efforts would be made to simplify the forms next year, Mr. Gummer said that the Government had always feared such a system would bring too much bureaucracy.
It certainly does. To try to make out that this is some great virtue is nonsense. It is itself a criticism of the system and of its complexity.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman went on at great length about fraud in the tobacco regime. If he is so concerned about fraud in the common agricultural policy, how does he expect this considerable sum of money—amounting to £1 billion extra this year—to be given out without proper checks being made on those who apply for it?

Dr. Strang: That is the point. That is what I am saying. Given the system that was agreed at the level of the European Community, for which the Minister must share some responsibility, it was almost inevitable that one would end up with this sort of bureaucracy and with farmers having to spend hours of their valuable time filling in forms. But the hon. Gentleman is right: once you have the system in place, it follows that you must have all these forms.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has just said that his real objection to the system is not that we are having a system like this, but that it is not quite so environmentally directed as it ought to be. His own propositions would end up with precisely the same need for precisely the same information on precisely the same forms. The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the country. He would need


the same information produced on the same forms, but he would not have bothered to spend the time that we have spent, making it easy for people to fill in the forms. He must not mislead the country.

Dr. Strang: No, I will not mislead the country. I am not convinced that the environmental policies that we have been advocating would require this kind of form, but even if they did the British people would understand because they would see some real environmental benefit. They will see nothing from this. This is simply another way of spending their money. It is a way of spending their money which constitutes direct aid to the industry and to that extent we support it, but I cannot believe that it is impossible to develop a better system of making these direct payments to producers than the one currently in place.
That is not our major criticism of the system, however—far from it. Our criticism is that it does not address the real weaknesses in the CAP. To a limited extent—we acknowledge this in our amendment—it addresses the issue of the inflated prices of the CAP. The cut in the cereal price and the cut in the beef price are positive, but they fall a long way short of what is required. Does MacSharry adequately enable the Community to look forward with confidence to any GATT agreement?
It was somewhat surprising that the Minister did not mention the word "GATT". Surely if there is a major issue on the horizon of the agriculture industry it is the implications of GATT. We do not know what the position will be in relation to the United States and the GATT agreement, or what the attitude of the new French Administration will be, but we must recognise that any test of the CAP reforms must include a reference to the GATT agreement and to the need to cut the volume of subsidised agricultural exports from the European Community. Many of us are not convinced that these reforms will adequately render the CAP acceptable to the proposals in the GATT agreement.
Labour has been consistent in its pressure for a swift settlement to those negotiations. Subsidised exports of surplus United States and European Community agricultural commodities have swamped and depressed international markets, disastrously pricing farmers in the developing world out of their own domestic markets. The House will remember that an EC/US GATT agricultural settlement was reached in November, including a commitment from the EC to reduce over six years the volume of subsidised exports of each product by 21 per cent. The Minister and the Commission insist that the commitments can be met as promised within the limits of the measures agreed in the CAP reforms, but many authorities disagree. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the way in which the Council of Agriculture Ministers has shaped up on this price package so far does not encourage much optimism about meeting the objectives, particularly in the dairy sector. The Minister himself implicitly acknowledged that.
Our major criticism of the so-called reforms of the CAP, however, is that they have failed to address the biggest problem—the huge cost to the Community taxpayer. The cost of the CAP has risen again in 1993. In the past couple of weeks the Commission has confirmed that expenditure this year will be higher than anticipated.
Much more serious, it has acknowledged that the cost of the CAP will go through the roof next year. It will certainly not come within the guideline. I quote from Agra Europe of 5 March:
The senior controller of EC farm spending has conceded that the EC Commission is likely to have to resort to 'creative accounting' in order to avoid exceeding the budget guideline in 1994 … Michel Jacquot [director of the agricultural guarantee fund] stated that the combined impact of a lower budget ceiling next year … and the higher cost resulting from the maintenance of the switchover system would cause serious problems for the Commission next year.
He goes on to explain what these creative accounting devices are, and they are pretty mind-boggling. They might include counting payments incurred in 1994 against the 1993 budget, closing the budget a year early or further delaying payments to member states—that is, the payments in our country by the intervention board to the agencies which intervene in the market.
The CAP reforms do not adequately address the huge cost of the CAP to British taxpayers and to taxpayers through throughout the Community. Because they fail to do that, because they fail to give confidence that we can meet the GAIT obligation, and because they fail to give any confidence that we shall see any reduction in expenditure in the long term, they are inherently unstable. That is a bad thing for the industry because, as hon. Members will acknowledge, there is rightly a limit to the amount of money that the taxpayer is prepared to spend on agricultural support, especially when it is spent as wastefully as it is in the common agricultural policy. Against that background, producers cannot be confident about what the long-term future holds for them.
The reforms which continue to dominate discussion about the CAP do not meet what is required. They introduce unnecessary bureaucracy. They fail to cut the cost to the consumer sufficiently. They will not provide long-term support to which the industry is entitled. They will not reduce the cost of the CAP to anything like a level acceptable to British taxpayers and taxpayers throughout the Community. For those reasons, we urge all hon. Members to vote for the Labour amendment this evening.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is very easy for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) to stand on the sidelines and throw brickbats at the common agricultural policy because we all know that in many respects the common agricultural policy is a fairly unlovely creature. But it is all that we have and we must make the best of it.
I am grateful to be called first from the Back Benches tonight because it gives me the opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and his team for what they have done in recent years to make the common agricultural policy far more acceptable, certainly to Conservative Members. They have improved it. They have moved it closer to the way that we wanted it, to the benefit of our farmers.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East to say that we should dump Greek tobacco farmers or that we should take a stern view of assistance given by the German Government to German sheep farmers, but if we do not concede this kind of compromise with our fellow members of the CAP, what will they do when we go, as we did recently, to seek an additional 70p on a ewe for hill farmers in my constituency? We must live together, which means from time to time swallowing things that we do not


like to swallow. Improvement in the CAP has come slowly and that is why my right hon. Friend and his team have been impressive. The system is better because prices are Row closer to world prices and that has been our aim.
I intend to deal with some of the environmental aspects of the CAP. Once again, the Government have a very creditable record in dealing with the environmental aspects of set-aside in particular. We have certainly moved the environmental aspect of the CAP to the top of the agenda. It was of no interest to France, to the Italians or even to the green Germans. It was this country that pushed forward the cause of environmentally friendly set-aside, and that is another credit to my right hon. Friend and his team. Only the other day, there was the £31 million package for new environmentally sensitive areas arid for the restoration of moorlands and intensive grazing of hills. That is another great credit to our agricultural team.
There are problems—I accept what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said on this—about rotational set-aside or fallow. I hope that, just as my right hon. Friend has improved things in the past, he will be able to get a better system for rotational set-aside. It is no good opposing set-aside. We cannot magic it away. The system has been adopted by Europe and, again, we have to live with it and to make the best of it. The problem of rotational set-aside is the requirement that fields should be cut on or after 1 May. In environmental terms, May day is as much of a disaster as it has been for the country generally, although it is enjoyed by people over there. I should like the May day bank holiday to go and the May day set-aside day to go as well.
The problem with rotational set-aside and the 1 May date is that if one allows a field to go wild up to 1 May, it becomes a honeypot for all wildlife, especially game birds and ground-nesting birds. They move into the area because it provides them with shelter and with food left by the combines in the previous season. It is also a reservoir of insect life and of weeds that grow in May. If the farmer starts to work on the field on 1 May, he is not only cutting the grass or ploughing it up, but cutting or ploughing the young partridge and the partridge chicks. That is why I was pleased that there was a meeting yesterday between the National Farmers Union and a number of bodies interested in wildlife to see whether they could reach a better compromise on the date. I am sure that many farmers who are environmentally responsible will move that day back from 1 May at least to 1 June so that the chicks, the ground-nesting birds and other wildlife have been reared by the time the mower or the plough goes over the land. I welcome any changes in that rule.
The reason for the rule is the prevention of fraud, which is a real problem with which our Ministers have to deal. It is not beyond the wit of Greek or southern Italian farmers who farm cereal on rather sparse fields to claim that a field that appears to be growing crops is growing nothing more than volunteer grain from seed left over by the previous combine. I urge that in our continuing review and improvement of this aspect of set-aside, we try to reach a better date for the mowers to begin their work.
The recent meeting shows that Britain's farmers are concerned about the environmental aspects of their policies. They know, as everyone does, that the CAP is costing a great deal of money and that the public are entitled to something for their cash. That is why farmers will enter the longer-term set-aside schemes, the woodland schemes and the permanent set-aside schemes. They

believe that the public are entitled to a return on that money. I urge Ministers in the coming year to try to re-negotiate that system and not to let a load of more crafty Greeks or Italians do a lot of damage to a scheme of set-aside that is potentially beneficial for our wildlife.

Mr. Paul Tyler: We may find that there is an unusual degree of consensus about objectives across the Chamber this evening. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has just said about the long-term advantages that can be achieved by non-rotational set-aside. I shall come back to that point.
We get an opportunity to range over the strategic objectives of the CAP only once a year. In previous years, there has been a full six-hour debate whereas this evening, we may have four hours of debate. In the interests of restricted production, about which we are all talking this evening, I intend to be brief.
It is extremely important that the Minister's words about surplus and shortage should be at the heart of our debate. After a period of considerable surplus, it is all too easy to forget that shortage is even more dangerous. Surely a modest surplus is better than even the most marginal shortage. That must be true not only of the United Kingdom, but of the Community generally and of the world at large and it should be in the back of our minds throughout all our discussions.
Like the Minister, I have addressed meetings of and have had discussions with the Small Farmers Association today. One of the reasons why there is increased interest —outside the House at least—in all parts of the country, urban and rural, in the way in which the CAP is developing is not only that the CAP has got to a watershed in terms of cost, but that many people—non-farmers as well as farmers—are more aware of the visible products of the CAP than has been the case in recent years.
In the similar debate in February 1989, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), stated:
one of the biggest threats to the CAP and hence to our farmers would be failure to achieve a successful outcome to the GATT Uruguay round".—[Official Report, 27 February 1992; Vol. 148, c. 28.]
Those who now have their body clock adjusted to "Farming Today" and who woke up early this morning will have heard the new Trade Secretary of the United States speaking on the subject. It is far from clear, four years after the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South made his prediction, whether the GATT round is any closer to completion than it was six months ago, let alone 12 months ago. If anything, we seem to be slipping back rather than going forward.
Although it is true that in the autumn there seemed to be some ground-breaking in an agreement on agriculture, that is surely now under threat and there is still no GATT resolution in sight. I know that some Conservative Members were delighted by the recent election results in France. I wonder whether they will still be delighted when our Minister meets the new French Minister, Jean Puech, and discovers whether there is a meeting of minds on the future of GATT and of the CAP. I believe that a time-bomb may be ticking away there. If so, we may find that even the comparatively small advance made in the latter part of last year is now at risk.
When the CAP reforms were brought back to the House last May, the Minister did not use the phrase "peace in our time", but the piece of paper that he waved at us was represented as a major triumph. It was represented as a triumph for simplicity, as a triumph for economy and as a triumph for an even playing field. On 22 May he said:
This was a major step forward … for British consumers and taxpayers".—[Official Report, 22 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 629.]
When we debated the agreement in full in June, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Overall, the cost to the consumer and taxpayer will be lower under the reformed CAP."—[Official Report, 12 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 555.]
This evening, the Minister said firmly that what we are now debating is the increased cost of the CAP reform. Surely that is the issue about which people are concerned. Moreover, there appears to be no beneficial result from that increased cost. To many people, it is totally inexplicable where all those billions are going. It is clear that they are not going into the pockets of the comparatively badly off small farmers whom the Minister and I met today. Equally clearly, it is not going to the marginal parts of the country—the less-favoured areas. On the whole, it does not seem to be going to the livestock producers. Where is it going? Is it going into intervention costs, distributors, and processors' costs or supermarket profits? Of course, it may be going into fraud, in which case we shall no doubt see, with the tightening of the fraud provisions that the Minister has claimed are now coming into effect, where savings can be made.
As has already been said, there are in this bundle several detailed documents relating to farmers in the eastern Lander of Germany, tobacco growers in southern Europe, and so on. However, there are one or two significant omissions. It is true that there is a very useful document on attempts to tighten up in the case of the approach of three member states to milk quota, but a universal review of the milk quota system is surely long overdue. This matter was referred to in last week's debate. The Minister and I had an exchange on the whole issue of quotas and there was another brief exchange this evening. The Commission, under instruction from the Council of Agriculture Ministers, should undertake a universal review. The ad hoc attempt to deal with the Italian problem or the Spanish problem is not sufficient.
Similarly, for the reasons given a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Hexham, there is an urgent need for a complete analysis of the real alternative of non-rotational, permanent set-aside. Not only is this the core of the problems that affect the United Kingdom; the country is uniquely affected by them. From an answer that the Minister gave me a few weeks ago, it is apparent that we are imposing upon ourselves a degree of set-aside that is totally unrepresentative of the scale of our agriculture and is not reflected in any way in other member states. I believe that over 60 per cent. of the farmers of this country will be affected by the set-aside provisions. The nearest figure—34 per cent.—is that of Denmark and the level falls right away in many other countries. Set-aside has become the core of the United Kingdom's approach to the CAP reforms, rather than something that we can simply blame on Brussels. Indeed, this country has a terrible tendency—perhaps the Government encourage it—to believe that

everything that is wrong with the CAP is "over there", or that if it is "over here", it must be the fault of people "over there". In this case, the reliance on set-aside is home-grown. It is a major mistake. This is only one of the reasons for the fact that the reforms that were put before the House last year, and are now coming slowly through the mincing machine, will prove to be very transitional. They are not a permanent solution to the major problems of the CAP.
On the question of environmental implications, I welcome all converts. I am delighted that there is unanimity in the House. I do not adopt the grudging attitude that Opposition Front-Bench Members display towards converts. My party and I were promoting these policies as long ago as 1978, when I co-authored a document entitled "New Deal for Rural Britain". I do not take any great pride in being 10 years ahead of others. Indeed, I am delighted that everybody else is with me now. However, if that is to be the approach, this country's insistence on relying on rotational set-aside flies in the face of all sensible and expert opinion.
It is impossible to provide new habitats for species by rotational set-aside. It is impossible to plan, on a long-term basis, to meet the needs of conservation with rotational set-aside. Even if it were sustainable as an environmental policy, it is quite unsustainable as a political policy to ask the people of this country, when they holiday in Cornwall—as I am sure they will—to pay' for organised dereliction: nettles, docks, and so on. Surely the appearance of total neglect is too high a price to ask the taxpayer to pay in tight times. It might work for a year, but I do not think that it would work for longer.
In this regard, we shall have a major problem in the near future. There is the question of a wider awareness in this country of the needs of a hungry world, including the needs of a hungry eastern Europe. I believe that rotational set-aside will prove to be the undoing of the whole of the package. It is as if the package contains the seeds of its own destruction.
There has been much reference to the integrated administration and control system forms. The Minister was kind enough to reassure me last week that these would be in the hands of the entire farming community by 2 April. For a reason about which we agreed—All Fools' day—he said that 1 April would not be appropriate. What is important is the way in which the forms will be processed and treated. I have asked that the comparable forms to be used in the other 11 member states be placed in the Library for us all to see. I hope very much that those will be available before the House rises at the end of the week. With the new system of monitoring the whole way in which the CAP is operating, it is critical to ensure that the same amount of information is available to all Governments and that those Governments are in a position to act on it.
Of course, we support attempts to control fraud. Of course, we are anxious to ensure that the right information is available. It will be difficult enough in this country to ensure that maps are sufficiently up to date to meet the requirements. Are we confident that, in the case of peasants in Greece, the right information will be provided? Are we confident that if information is not provided, or is provided in a deliberately misleading way, Ministers in other Community countries will insist on the same attention to detail, monitoring and policing as applies in this country? We are not against the IACS forms; what we


are against is an unreasonable degree of bureaucracy in this country which is not matched by effective monitoring in the other member states. The Minister was quite right in referring to the need for a system of uniform effectiveness throughout the Community. One of the advantages of the Maastricht treaty is that it will give more teeth to the implementation of such systems.
We are not discussing potatoes in this debate. Potatoes do not yet feature in an EC regime. However, I hope that the Minister takes very seriously indeed the widespread misgivings—misgivings expressed in all parts of the House last week—about too fast a transition from the present managed market to the unknown of a regime that we do not understand. We do not yet know how it will work. That all-party concern is reflected by all sectors of the industry and by many other parts of the agricultural community.
There is a specific mention in the package of the sheep regime in France. The concern expressed earlier about the extent of derogation to national Governments will be widely supported. If we are to have a common agricultural policy and if there are broadly similar circumstances for particular sectors, it should be the exception rather than the rule that a Government, like the French Government, should be able to come forward with quite specific proposals for their sheep sector when that will obviously affect the competitive advantage of other sheep sectors in other member states.
It is difficult to ensure that the level of derogation is kept to a reasonable limit. However, we should be conscious of the potential conflict between increasing subsidiarity on the one hand and the initiative to which I have just referred on the other, which then calls into question the overall common agricultural policy. That may also affect what is eligible and what is not eligible for the so-called green box in the GATT negotiations.
If there is too much derogation and subsidiarity among member states' Governments, the green box might be called into question. That, again, is why there is an advantage in a Community-wide approach to issues such as set-aside and environmental advantages. Those issues will clearly fall in the green box and should therefore not be subject to any undermining by the GATT negotiations.
I have been brief as I am conscious that other hon. Members may want to contribute to what should he an overall assessment of what is happening to the CAP. There will be widespread support in all parts of the House for the concern expressed this evening for the health of the agriculture community. However, in my book, that is only part—although a vital part—of the concern that we should all share for the health of the rural economy, of the rural environment and of balanced communities in rural areas.
Of course, agriculture remains the core industry for most parts of the countryside, but it is not the only part. One of the complaints that is often voiced by many interests is that in the past the CAP has concentrated far too much on a selection of agriculture production objectives rather than on the health of the rural economy as a whole. That was why many of us were so concerned about the way in which the hill livestock compensatory allowances were downgraded in the past few weeks.
I hope very much that the new regime in France will not destabilise the CAP. However, we should all be conscious of the fact that, even with everything going the right way, the CAP reforms are by no means as permanent as they looked last summer. The Minister said this evening that

uncertainty has been lessened. Last summer he said that it had been removed. The best that we can say this evening is that the CAP reforms may last a year or two, but, before very long, Ministers will be around the table again.

Mr. David Harris: I hope the fact that the House sat all night has not upset my normal placid attitude and reputation. However, I want first of all—I have given notice of this—gently to chide the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). While he was speaking, I could not help noticing that his Bench was as empty as most Benches. I mention that simply because he wrote a letter to the Western Morning News which I found rather silly and, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, a little sactimonious. In reference to last week's debate on agriculture, the hon. Gentleman wrote:
Conservative MPs representing Cornish and Devon constituencies were, however, conspicuous by their absence.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we often speak in the House to a less packed audience than we would perhaps like. For my part, I was missing last week because I was in Brussels on business as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's leader, who did not vote at the end of last week's debate, also had an equally good reason for being absent.

Mr. Tyler: I must confess that my colleagues have a curious choice of priorities in that they came to listen to the Minister this evening, but did not stay to hear me.

Mr. Harris: They did pop in for a few minutes and then left to return to their dinners or to their pressing engagements. I fully acknowledge that we all have many engagements. I will not labour the point, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to acknowledge it.
My real criticism is directed at my right hon. Friend the Minister—and perhaps this is the effect of an all-night sitting. I said that I was in Brussels last week as a member of the European Legislation Committee. Last night, during the all-night sitting, I read the papers relating to that Committee. A particular paper was tagged to the papers for this debate—so that I am able to refer to it—on national aid for French sheep farming, a subject to which the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) referred.
I have had the advantage of seeing some of the papers in more detail because of my position on the European Legislation Committee, and I have been astounded by what they contain. During a meeting of the Agriculture Council on 17 March, the Minister—I informed him that I would refer to this issue—apparently agreed to a proposal that France should be allowed to put in place an £8 million subsidy scheme for its sheep farmers. The papers to the European Legislation Committee point out clearly that the Commission had considered that the provision of that national aid to French sheep producers was
incompatible with the Common Market.
The reason given in the papers was that a letter had been written by the Minister of State
to the Chairman … of the European Legislation Committee … explaining why Mr. Gummer gave his agreement, thus contributing to the unanimous decision, as required if the Commission's ruling was to be overturned. This involved


assurances by the then French Minister of the Interior that his Government would take all necessary steps to secure the free flow of goods, particularly fish.
Two points immediately arise. First, should our Ministers have put faith in the assurances of the then French Minister of the Interior on 17 March, knowing that the following Sunday was to see the first round in the French general election? As we know, that saw the exit of the previous French Government and, with them, the exit of that socialist Minister of the Interior. But apparently his assurances were worth while, and for that reason we went along with giving that extra aid to French farmers.
The second point is more fundamental. I do not for the life of me see why the British Government should be giving a special dispensation to the French Government to do what they have a duty to do, which is to allow and facilitate the import into France of legitimate produce from this country, be it sheepmeat, poultrymeat, dairy produce or fish. Whatever assurances were given, there have been continuing difficulties in getting produce into the French market.
I praise the Minister for doing his utmost to get the French Government to behave in a more reasonable manner. It is true that arrangements have been put in place to enable convoy facilities and protection to be given in respect of fish going into France, and I welcome that; but we should not have gone along with giving national aid to French farmers, apparently on the basis of assurances that the French Government would behave in a proper manner on matters on which they had an absolute duty—in particular to facilitate imports into France. There may be a completely different aspect to the story which has not been brought out in the documents which I have quoted. I am ready to listen to any explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Minister, and perhaps there is one.
We all know about the disgraceful behaviour in France, particularly over imports of lamb from this country, let alone fish. When a Government, be they French or any other, in the European Community do not carry out their duty on imports of agricultural produce, our Government should make it clear that, instead of giving them special dispensation to get their co-operation, we will, if necessary, in conjunction with the Commission, take action against them by using article 169 of the treaty of Rome, which makes it clear that a member state has a duty to ensure that legitimate imports get through.
I am sorry to go on about the matter, but there is another important aspect. The Community is in the process of giving £8 million as national aid to French sheep farmers. That may well make it more difficult for sheep farmers in the south-west of England, for example, to export legitimately to France, because the French farmers will have additional assistance. Earlier, I chided him, but I will support what my hon. Friend—I call him that deliberately because we both represent Cornish con-stituencies—the Member for North Cornwall said about the position of farmers in the south-west when we are considering national aid by other member states to their farmers.
Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made heavy weather, as does the amendment, of trying to attack my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister has done a good job in trying to lead the reform process on the common

agricultural policy. The hon. Member for North Cornwall is correct; this is not the end of the story. I would be appalled if it was. I hope—not fear—that Ministers will be back round the table working for further sensible reforms. Despite the great advances that have been made, aspects of the common agricultural policy still need to be reformed; it is a continuous process.
I welcome various points in the price review and the measures surrounding it. I was very pleased that there is not to be a further cut in milk quotas in the coming year. That is welcomed too by milk producers.
Having read the briefing notes provided by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association, I cannot help contrasting the nature of those notes and their comments on the current position with the briefing notes which we all received a few years ago. There has been a distinct change in the reaction of farming unions, farming organisations and other bodies associated with rural life. That is very welcome.
For example, the National Farmers Union welcomes the Commission's intention to end the milk co-responsibility levy from 1 April this year. We can all say amen to that, because hon. Members on both sides of the House have opposed that nonsensical levy. The Country Landowners Association starts its briefing note by saying:
The annual European Community CAP prices negotiation may be less controversial than usual this year.
We can read between the lines of that and see that, the position is not too bad. The association goes out of its way to congratulate the Minister, rightly, on the green package and other aspects of the matters which we are debating tonight.
If I considered agriculture in my constituency and the county of Cornwall, I would conclude that there was a distinct and significant improvement in the returns for farmers, despite their difficulties. Farmers have not stopped grumbling and they still have problems. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is correct to say that the improvement in returns is due partly to the value of sterling, but I do not think that it is entirely due to that. For example, I noted that broccoli—Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know it as cauliflower, but in Cornwall we refer to it as broccoli—and spring cabbage prices have been fairly good this year. The price of livestock has also been good: one need look only at beef prices. I am in no way saying that everything is wonderful or that the agricultural industry does not have its problems.
I take the proper point that my right hon. Friend made—that the improvements, which we all welcome, start from a low base as far as incomes are concerned. I am not for one moment suggesting that everything is wonderful but, when there is an improvement in income, at least we should point it out and say that that is good and we are moving in the right direction.
Attendance at this debate, which is not overwhelming, is perhaps in some way a reflection of the fact that there is not the anxiety about agriculture that there has been recently.

Mr. John Greenway: Quality.

Mr. Harris: The quality is high.
My mind goes back to previous debates on agriculture when the House was fairly full. I agree that the attendance tonight should not be interpreted as in any way detracting from the importance of agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of my constituency and of the economy in


Cornwall and in many other parts of the country. We all want to ensure that agriculture has a future, in which people in it can have confidence. Without wishing to overstate the case, I believe that we are at least debating the issue in a much better atmosphere than in the past and with more knowledge of where we are going.

Mr. George Stevenson: The motion asks us to take note of
the prices … and on related measures, 1993–94: and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome … that will take account of the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers, builds upon the 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reforms,".
I read that out purposely, because we need to examine carefully exactly what we are building on.
The Government say that the general principle underlying the price package is stability. We can all say "Hear, hear" to that, because, if there is one thing that agriculture has been lacking for many a good year, it is a set of objectives and a sense of stability to which the industry can look forward. That principle is extremely important. When we talk to farmers, as we all do from time to time, the one thing that they impress on us is the need for a set of clear objectives—where we are going—and a need for stability. On that basis, I shall judge whether we can build on the reforms that were agreed in 1992.
It seems that the Government's measure of stability is that prices this year are unchanged. Vital long-term stability is not especially evident. The Minister said that it is not feasible to look further into the future than next year. What sort of confidence does that give agriculture? However, I do not blame him for saying that. When we consider what we are facing as a result of the so-called reforms, I think that the Minister was wise to say that we should look no further than next year. Short-termism is evident throughout the so-called reforms.
There has never been any doubt that the CAP was in need of fundamental reform; we know that it has been a spectacular failure. Unfortunately, I have severe reservations about the deal that was reached in May 1992, which is contained in the documents that are before us. It does not constitute the fundamental reform that will bring stability and confidence to agriculture throughout the Community, and especially in the United Kingdom.
With cereals, there has been reform, but even that is flawed. The system still discriminates against larger producers, who must still put 15 per cent. of their land into set-aside to qualify for compensation. Those with holdings of up to 20 hectares—there are many such holdings in other EC countries—do not have to do that.
The Commission says that at the heart of the reform of the CAP is the desire to sharpen or reduce price support, to compensate farmers for a fall in income and to preserve the level of agriculture that is based on family farms. For my sins or otherwise, I have spent some time as a Member of the European Parliament. I know that, if one issue has been discussed more often in agriculture debates than anything else, it is what constitutes a family farm. My clear impression is that what we in the United Kingdom describe as a family farm is far distant from that which is recognised as such in the rest of the member states. Unfortunately, the so-called CAP reforms have been

slanted heavily towards the interpretation of a family farm in the rest of the Community, to the disadvantage of United Kingdom agriculture.
The so-called reform that we are discussing will benefit smaller and less efficient producers. That needs to be underlined. Some systems of agriculture in the Community are relatively old-fashioned. They are relatively less efficient, but we must be careful about how we judge efficiency. It can be judged by how much money comes out of the public purse to a producer. If it is judged by how much is produced per hectare, the clear result is that United Kingdom producers are very efficient. That is not the position in many member states, because of the size and structure of agriculture.
The various reforms reflect a dramatic shift in emphasis. There is the danger that they will lead to the support of less efficient producers instead of efficiency. That will lead in turn to the danger of an ossification of backward practices. That could affect the ability of European Community agriculture to compete on the world market. That is particularly important when we consider that all the evidence shows that efficiency is likely to be penalised and lack of efficiency likely to be supported. We shall say to Portuguese farmers who work on very small holdings, "Do not change. We will support what you are doing," while at the same time we are in danger of penalising the more efficient producers. That is not the right framework to take us into what we hope will be a more liberalised world market in which competition will become more the order of the day.
Some Conservative Members have criticised my hon. Friends for criticising the Minister of Agriculture too much. I suppose that we are all sorry about that, but it is not my intention to do that. I certainly do not want to be accused of being churlish. There have been some improvements on the original package. The cereals compensation has been improved. Larger farms will receive compensation for all the land that they set aside. However, I still argue that the system discriminates against United Kingdom producers. We must never forget that. Larger producers will still have to set aside 12 per cent. of their land to qualify for compensation. That is not the case for smaller producers.
In the sheep regime, the headage limit has been increased from 750 in the original proposals to 1,000. That is to be welcomed. I also welcome the increase from 350 to 500 for lowland areas and the continuation of the 50 per cent. of the premium above those limits. All those improvements came out of the negotiation, and we should recognise and welcome them.
I also welcome the environmental moves that have been made. Certain CAP subsidies will be tied to observation of basic environmental standards by the producer. The Minister referred to the so-called cross-compliance when land is set aside. These are all small but welcome developments. I also welcome the greater emphasis on projects such as the creation of environmentally sensitive areas, although the amount of money involved remains lamentably small.
I have mentioned the most notable examples of the improvements that resulted from the negotiations. However, by no stretch of the imagination do even those improvements provide a stable framework for agriculture, especially in the United Kingdom. If one asks farmers the length and breadth of the land whether they feel more


confident now about the future, they may say that they feel more confident about the coming year, but they may not feel so confident about the future.
Agriculture has to be a long-term project. One cannot turn the tap off from one year to the next. Therefore, while we shall see improvements this year, we shall be in danger of deluding ourselves if we consider that they represent the confidence and stability which farmers look for. Indeed, there are already signs that the deal is falling apart at the seams.
There is a continuing controversy about the compatibility of CAP reform and the GATT agreement. A special committee meeting of the Council of Ministers on 18 February reported little progress on the issue. It recorded that some member states had severe doubt about the compatibility of the CAP reform and the GATT agreement. Heaven knows what will happen when the new French Government carry out their threat. Perhaps they are another Government who will not keep their promises.
However, let us ignore that controversy for the moment and examine the issues that cause anxiety to everyone in the agricultural industry. People know that it is not possible to continue pushing costs up and up. They are not daft; they are business people.
Let us consider the reality. The 1993 budget for agriculture was set at 34 billion ecu. There is about 80p to an ecu, but I shall not do the conversion; I shall leave that to hon. Members. In mid-January, just two weeks into the budgetary year, the Commission said that it wanted a 1 billion ecu increase. Some of that, but not all, was due to currency changes. Some was due to the considerable increases in unplanned costs resulting from additional production. The estimated result for the 1993 budget is now 3·9 billion ecu above the 1992 budget. That is significant because the 1992 budget showed little increase over the 1991 budget. It is therefore obvious that the position is rapidly deteriorating.
Before I am again told that that is a one-off problem, I want to go into a little detail about the projections for 1994. The documents give estimated costs of 36·7 billion ecu, which is 2·7 billion ecu above the original 1993 budget and a staggering 5·6 billion ecu above the 1991 budget. In just three years, the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund has increased from 31 billion ecu to 35·5 billion ecu. There is the prospect that, if we do not take account of the coming year, farmers' incomes will not increase. That is hardly an example of budgetary control.
The level of stocks also gives rise to significant concern. No one could argue that we should continue to hold such massive stocks. I accept that we need to be self-sufficient and to have a buffer, but there can be no justification for holding such enormous stocks. Indeed, it has been a central part of policy to try to reduce them.
This year, 30 million tonnes of cereals will be in stock. That is a dramatic increase, despite a relatively poor harvest. There are also high stocks of beef, despite a very costly programme under which 1·1 million tonnes were exported. According to the Commission, beef stocks are now approaching 1·2 million tonnes, which is a record high. Stocks generally are now reaching record proportions, although, to be fair, stocks of butter and skimmed milk powder have fallen.
If we take account of the various scenarios being considered by the Commission, the impact of the proposals on cereals—the one area that could rightly be described as reformed—over five years could result in 1997–98 production being as high as 173 million tonnes. If that estimate is correct—I think that it is on the low side —that is only 7 million tonnes less than production in 1991–92. It is only a 4 per cent. reduction in cereal production despite measures which, on the Commission's own admission, will cost 5–6 billion ecu more than they cost in 1991.
Beef production is set to increase up to 1997 and the Commission expects a considerable rise in both surpluses and stocks.
Hon. Members have mentioned milk reform: they have mentioned the agreed cut in the quota of 1 per cent. in successive years from 1993 onwards. That has already been deferred. I suppose that the milk industry and the farmers will be pleased, but the position cannot be described as consistent. It cannot be consistent to agree a reduction of 3 per cent. over three years in May, and to change one's mind within months.
If I were a milk producer, I would say, "Hang on a second: if that can happen in a matter of months, they can change their minds again. How am Ito plan for the future? How will my investment be affected? I do not know what is happening from one month to the next." The documents before us present an inherent threat of inconsistency, instability and short-termism.
Other hon. Members have mentioned Italy. I see no justification in agreeing—even in principle—to a 900,000 tonne increase in the Italian quota, even if such an increase is circumscribed by the conditions mentioned by the Minister. His faith in Italy is touching: he assured us that he would expect the Italians, as well as us, to fill in the forms to which other hon. Members have referred. I hope that that happens, but I cannot embrace that touching faith, given the Italians' record—particularly their record in regard to milk. The 900,000 tonne increase is unjustifiable, especially as neither the Minister nor anyone else has asked the question that I would ask. We are not self-sufficient in milk production; are we fighting for additional quotas for our producers?
It is no good saying that quota is useless because we cannot convert it into added-value goods. That is because, owing to our not having sufficient quota, we are closing down processing factories. We are in a vicious circle, but the Minister did not seem to recognise that.
Italy has never implemented the system, and I believe that this agreement defies even the most charitable logic. According to European Community officials, consumers —a group we all represent, but who are not mentioned in our debates as often as they should be—may benefit from a paltry 2 per cent. reduction in food prices in three years. Devaluation has put paid to that. Already the pressure on food prices is increasing, especially in the case of sugar.
The Court of Auditors usually delays judgment until after the event, but it has seen fit to comment on the so-called reforms before the event. It has said that the reforms are a bureaucratic nightmare and a recipe for fraud.
I see no real, long-term progress towards the objectives that are in the interests of agriculture, the consumer, the environment, budgetary control and a system that will lead us into the next century. There is no perceptible benefit for consumers; indeed, as I have said, devaluation has brought


about the opposite. As the documents demonstrate, the taxpayer will be asked to dig deeper into his pocket to fund additional expenditure, and fraud is certain to increase; indeed, I believe that the fraudsters are already doing their homework. Meanwhile a volatile, uncertain future remains for farmers, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Even according to the most favourable assumptions, this reform is designed not to eliminate but to mitigate the problems. There must be a will for such fundamental reform, and that demands a basic rethink. It is complacent in the extreme to base future policy on so-called reforms, as the Government motion proposes, and I hope that the House will support, in strength, the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. John Greenway: As usual in these annual CAP debates, the debate has been good natured. I do not wish to spoil the consensus, but I must take issue with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who complained that the Government deserve no credit for the increased farm incomes which have resulted from sterling's departure from the exchange rate mechanism. Until black Wednesday, the official Opposition supported sterling's exchange rate in the ERM at DM2·95. Some Conservative Members called for devaluation and for sterling's exit from the ERM, which has had the beneficial effects that we now see and which is why most Conservative Members refer to it as golden Wednesday.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East overlooked the fact that the benefit of devaluation flowed to United Kingdom farmers only because of the reform of agri-monetary arrangements which my right hon. Friend the Minister negotiated. If we still had the nonsense of the green pound and monetary compensatory amounts. which used to characterise these debates, we would have been given much more meaty briefs from farmers. Thankfully, all that is past, thanks to my right hon. Friend's initiative and persistence.
The debate always enables us to look at where we have reached in the long process of CAP reform. Listening to my right hon. Friend the Minister at a Back-Bench meeting yesterday, I was musing about the complaints of farmers and others about the common agricultural policy: it is expensive, bureaucratic, open to fraud and, despite the cost, does not give adequate support to farmers. There is a lack of environmental safeguards and some member states do not play by the rules, about which we have heard much tonight. It discriminates against United Kingdom farmers, especially on the agri-monetary arrangements, to which I have referred; thankfully, it no longer does. It distorts world markets, encourages over-production and fails to encourage farmers to produce what the market wants.
Not surprisingly, many proposals for change have been made: that farmers need to produce for the market and that we need to reduce cost, direct support at the producer rather than at the intervention store, reform the green pound system, end discrimination, strengthen enforcement and limit production. There have been many arguments at the farmers' meetings that I have attended, not about whether we should have set-aside but about whether it

should be voluntary or compulsory. We have heard much argument about the need to incorporate environmental safeguards.
We can take stock of several years of debate and argument about how all the changes should be achieved. We should also recognise that the hand of the European Commission was eventually forced by budgetary pressures —the need to keep the CAP within Budget. I remind the House that my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher campaigned repeatedly year after year on this point, and she deserves much credit for our current position in controlling the European Community budget.
I recall that for about three years we had a series of proposals from the European Commission, the central feature of which was discrimination against United Kingdom farmers. Despite what has been said tonight, it is still my view that, by and large, my right hon. Friend negotiated most of that discrimination out of the eventual package of measures which was agreed last year in the CAP reforms.
That is not to say that there are not protectionist pressures in other member states. Such pressures clearly exist, as can be seen in France at the moment. Nor does it mean that there will not be other member states of which it is valid to say that they are not complying with the regulations. Both those issues imply certain discrimination, but my right hon. Friend consistently refused to accept the discrimination that was central to the MacSharry reforms and he won the argument.
We should also remind the House that the package of reforms is not my right hon. Friend's package, but the European Commission's. The price fixing that we are debating follows on from that package. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the set-aside policy was my right hon. Friend's policy, but that is not so. Over the past three or four years in these debates, I have heard my right hon. Friend say repeatedly that set-aside seems to be the only proposal that we have, and that we must argue with other member states that they must play by the rules. I do not think that he has ever stood at the Dispatch Box and said that such supply management was his preferred option. I do not believe that it is. I note from his reaction that he confirms what I say.
If we are to have a supply management package, there is bound to be a great deal of paperwork involved. That is the central problem. I have outlined some of the things that we have said are wrong with the CAP and some of the things that people say we should do, but some of those objectives militate against one another. The most obvious relates to bureaucracy. A supply management scheme cannot work without a great deal of paperwork.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is right. I know that he has put a great deal of effort into producing the forms so that farmers can understand them. I read the article in The Daily Telegraph to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred, but it did not appear to be too critical of what the Minister had done. It may have been critical of the fact that farmers will have to fill in forms, but if there is to be supply management there must be forms to fill in. I expect that in my constituency and those of other hon. Members there will be merry hell to pay initially, but I do not doubt that with the help of the farming unions we shall persuade farmers that it is not quite so bad as it seems, that the scheme can work and that if they do not fill in the forms and send them off by 15 May they will lose out financially.
I do not want to be churlish and break the spirit of our good-natured debate but I must take issue briefly with something else that the hon. Member for North Cornwall said. We are all worried to death that member states will not play by the rules, but it does not help one jot for us to say so in the House. We should take the opportunity to tell my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State, who has a lot of negotiating to do, that they have the House's support. If other member states do not play by the rules, every hon. Member should give the Ministers the support that they need to ensure that the reforms are properly implemented. The Commission should be forced to tell other member states that unless they fill in the forms and play by the rules they will not get the money. Unless we are really firm, the whole system will collapse, as some hon. Members have said.
I believe that farmers now recognise that reform of the agri-monetary system, coupled with the devaluation of the green pound, has had a profound effect on agricultural prices. That is extremely welcome and was much needed. Farm incomes have been at rock bottom for some time, with farmers struggling along hoping for better times. For the moment, to a degree, those better times have come —but I am not sure how long they will last. There are signs that sterling may revalue upwards a touch. There have been suggestions of that in the financial pages of the heavy press for some time. There may be some technical revaluation, which will immediately have the effect of reducing prices under the system. Cuts in support prices will therefore follow, but under the reforms there will be cuts in support prices anyway. I believe that from the year beginning 1 July cereal support prices will be cut by up to 25 per cent. That was the central thrust of the package; in time, it must have an effect on the market price and eventually on the price that the farmer gets.
There has been some adverse effect on food prices, but by and large that is overstated. We have heard some criticism tonight to the effect that food is expensive. I do not believe that it is. Over the past 14 or 15 years food price rises have generally been below the rate of inflation. If we take a longer-term view we find that it is not so much the price at the farm gate which affects the price of food in the shops as all the other pressures in the commercial world —pressures in the grocery trade and the retail trade, the cost of transporting food around the country, the cost of imported food, and so on—which have a much greater effect.
Tonight we must consider whether the proposed CAP reforms will have the desired effect. I have asked three questions. First, will they direct more money to the farmers? I think that they will, and that the new set-aside scheme—the cause of all those forms that farmers will have to fill in—will provide almost £1 billion in income for United Kingdom farmers in the year ahead, and nearly £1·5 billion for the year after that. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in his opening speech that the United Kingdom's share of the common agricultural policy budget will increase from 7 to 9 per cent. That welcome 30 per cent. increase in money was much needed.
My second question is whether the reforms will reduce output. There is more reason to doubt whether they will

have the effect that we want in terms of reducing output because farmers constantly strive for greater efficiency. Year on year, we have seen yields rising.
Thirdly, will the reforms encourage production for the market? I think that there will be some limited success there, especially when we see the impact of the fall in support prices central to the reform package.
We also need to consider other ways of helping farmers to become more market oriented. I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's continuing commitment to helping with marketing grants to marketing schemes, in which farmers can effectively combine together to gain a little more power in the market place and to improve the quality and consistency of their products.
There is an important stumbling block, however. I still feel that consumers generally do not know enough about where their food comes from. I want to mention to my right hon. Friend an article which he may have seen and which appeared in The Sun yesterday. It is not just where the food comes from; it is what people drink as well—they do not know where that comes from. The article tells us that my right hon. Friend
pushed a bottle of the famous spring Perrier water out of his sight after finding it in front of him at a London conference. Mr. Gummer said, 'Perrier fizzy water is not as good as those produced in the UK.' A Sun survey agreed.
The best is yet to come—just remember that bit about the United Kingdom.
Here are three brands that are TWICE as nice and only HALF the price—Strathmore … Buxton … and Evian".
That is one for a "Tell me another" book, I am sure, but it makes me think that we need to do a lot more to inform the consumer, the housewife and the busy shopper where the food that they are buying is produced. We have nothing to fear in the United Kingdom across our agriculture sector in marketing British products wherever we can.
I would like to mention three specific issues to my right hon. Friend. First, the beef special premium scheme is exceedingly unpopular in my Ryedale constituency and I dare say that it is unpopular in other hon. Members' constituencies. I have been in the House since the debate began and I am surprised to find that I am the first hon. Member to mention it. Auctioneers and farmers in my area tell me that they will have grave difficulty making it work. I implore my right hon. Friend to be as flexible and helpful as he can. I am sure that he will be as I know that he is concerned particularly about the beef sector, especially in relation to the continuing fall in demand for red meat. Even Dr. Peel, following my three yearly medical check-up here in the House, advised me to eat less red meat. I am not sure that I shall take much notice as I enjoy beef and Yorkshire lamb, but it is advice that I suspect that many doctors are giving to other people, too.
I should like also to mention the linseed regime. The decision to drop set-aside for linseed was very welcome, but some United Kingdom growers have planted or are ready to plant on land which has now been declared ineligible for arable crops because it was outside the arable rotation at the end of 1991. I find this very difficult, but I have one young farmer who is a new entrant and who spent £1,500 on the seed. He was all ready to go and has now been told that because of the change in the rules he cannot have the money. Because of the support for linseed, what he would get for it on the market will not make the exercise worth while. I understand that within the linseed


regime there is still a deficit across the Community. That in itself suggests that more support might be justified and that we need perhaps to re-examine that.
Thirdly, I want to mention sugar. There is as yet no proposal from the Community, but my right hon. Friend knows the great importance of the sugar crop to farmers in the vale of York, around Malton and in the vale of Pickering. When it comes to arguing in Brussels, as I know that he will with all the power and strength at his disposal, will he please bear in mind that we produce about 50 per cent. of our sugar needs in the United Kingdom on United Kingdom farms? That suggests that we should not suffer sizeable quota cuts. This crop has helped to sustain many farms in my constituency through some difficult times in recent years.
This year's price proposals carry forward the process of reform agreed last year. The CAP is far from perfect. We all have our doubts about its future and more reforms seem inevitable to many of us. Two crucial points matter: first, we must keep within budget; secondly, there must be no discrimination against United Kingdom farmers.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Many hon. Members have referred to the fact that agriculture is a vital part of the rural economy and I do not contradict them. However, west Wales and especially the county of Dyfed comprise an area which, by the EC's own data, could be considered as having the same problems as Portugal, Greece and Ireland, because it has only 76 per cent. of the average per capita income of the EC and thus would qualify for objective 1 status. Unfortunately, that is not a possibility because of its population size, although the statistics on income would merit that status. For an area such as west Wales, which is so dependent on agriculture, any changes will have a significant effect.
I am worried about compulsory set-aside, about the reduction in cereal support in Wales compared to the reduction in England, and about the hill livestock compensatory allowances, which we debated a few weeks ago. My farmers do not believe any of the figures given by the Minister. I am also worried about the fact that, even after the 1984 imposition of milk quotas, Britain remains at an enormous disadvantage compared with many other European countries.
As a member of the Committee on the Agriculture Bill, I had an interesting meeting yesterday with representatives from Unigate, which runs the creamery in my constituency. The representatives made the point forcefully that Unigate, as a major producer of cheese, wanted to purchase at least another 20 per cent. of milk in my constituency. Unigate cannot do so because of the quotas and, as a major British food manufacturing company, it is extremely annoyed to see on supermarket shelves significant amounts of cheese imported from Ireland, from EC countries and from Canada.
It is important, when considering the reforms, to address the issue of income for our rural areas. Conservative Members have almost congratulated the Minister on the effects of black Wednesday. It is rather peculiar for policy to appear to be set by accident rather than by design. It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to tell us that they had been calling for devaluation before September. I do not recall hearing such voices on

Conservative Benches. I have never believed that we should have supported the benchmark of DM2·95 to the pound.
The current levels of surplus in storage, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) referred, and the cost of maintaining those surpluses, are robbing the rural community. On current levels, only £3 out of every £10 of expenditure on the CAP goes to the farmers. A significant proportion of the remaining £7 is wasted in storage costs, intervention costs and export subsidies. That issue must be addressed fundamentally if there is to be a significant improvement in the CAP regime generally.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) let the cat out of the bag when he indicated that he sees set-aside as a means of increasing farm incomes, while admitting that it is highly unlikely to reduce production. If that is the case, why on earth have it? Why should British cereal producers be told, in effect, that they will have to set aside 15 per cent. of their land if this is to have no effect on surpluses? For the reasons that I gave earlier, I hope that it will have some effect. In the long run, farmers are robbed of income.
It is rather worrying that, in a debate of this nature, which many Conservative Members have described as important, there are no representatives of the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office on the Government Front Bench to reply to points relating to Scotland and Wales.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Nor is there a representative of the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. Ainger: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point.
I do not know the reason for the absence of such representatives. Perhaps Ministers have business elsewhere. Agriculture is the mainstay of the rural economy in Wales, and we have significant numbers of people employed in the food industry generally. That being the case, it is strange that no Welsh Office Minister could be bothered to come along to what is a relatively rare debate.

Mr. Gummer: Given that agriculture is so basic in Wales and that there are more than 25 Welsh Labour Members of Parliament, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us why he is the only one who has bothered to turn up. I exclude the Whip, who has to be here as he is on duty.

Mr. Ainger: I do not have to defend my position, and I certainly do not have to defend the position of my Labour colleagues.
It is also significant that not one representative of the Welsh National party is present, despite the fact that all Welsh nationalist Members represent rural constituencies. I admit that, in one respect, I am unusual. However, I like to think that I represent a trend—Labour Members from Welsh rural constituencies.
With regard to set-aside, the farmers of my constituency say that it is far better to use land productively—not for food production, but for industrial production—than to abandon it to weeds and brush, in which small partridges can find nesting places. This is a matter to which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred. The National Farmers Union branch in Haverfordwest has considered in great detail the option of producing rapeseed oil on set-aside land, perhaps taking


over land used for cereal production, in the hope that the Government will recognise the importance of bio fuels, which are environmentally friendly.
The energy technology support unit has estimated that, if all the United Kingdom's 1992 set-aside land were turned over to the growing of rapeseed, 743,000 tonnes of fuel could be produced. That would replace more than 600,000 tonnes of conventional, mineral-based diesel. The effect of that on the environment would be a 3.5 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions. Not only is that a way of increasing incomes in the rural economy and of making good productive use of land without adding to the surpluses, but it also assists by cleaning up the environment and reducing the problem of global warming.
Among the many disappointments in the Chancellor's Budget speech was the lost opportunity to assist the farming industry in a move to industrial crops. Under the current EC regime, pilot schemes for such crops receive a specific tax benefit. It was unfortunate that the Chancellor missed that opportunity. I understand that, in a new directive, the EC tax Commissioner is proposing the possibility of a 90 per cent. reduction in duty on biodiesel. If that is true, it is welcome, and I hope that the Government will push for it in negotiations in Brussels.
Instead of setting land aside and reducing farming incomes, and thereby further reducing prosperity in our rural economy, it is a great shame that that opportunity is being missed. Following the Rio summit, it has been acknowledged that all countries should take steps significantly to reduce carbon dioxide production. By moving to far more environmentally friendly fuels such as biodiesel, we could at a stroke solve some of our problems in relation to global warming, and also add value to land that is currently set aside.
It is extremely worrying to hear constant assurances from Conservative Members that the deal has overall been a good one. They rightly admit that the increases that have stemmed from the package, although small, are from a low base. As I have said, the rural economy in my constituency is in a crisis that is linked to other problems, such as the closure of Ministry of Defence bases.
It is no good the Government saying that they are trying to reduce the effects of the CAP, when at the same time they are reducing incomes in the rural economy. Ultimately, the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill in one way or another. It is important to try to reduce our surpluses significantly. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will refer to biodiesel and to biofuels, as they are a far better way of using productive land than producing weeds.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Speaker, I hesitated before rising as I was hearing some most useful technical information from behind when you called my name. However, I am very grateful to you for calling me. I am also grateful for the fact that I have passed the magical witching hour of 10 pm. I would not have liked to foul up the 10 o'clock rule, so that I was responsible for keeping my hon. Friends here all night listening to me. That would have been most unfortunate.
I will be extremely brief. However, this is a very important debate. We are talking about the third largest industry in the country, after the combined chemical industries and the North sea oil industry. This subject affects all our constituents, because they are all consumers. It also intimately affects the performance of our economy. Although it is such a large industry, we have a £5·5 billion deficit in the food and drink section. It is therefore vital that we promote policies which boost the performance of that industry. That is why I welcome the new Agriculture Bill, for in the potato and milk sectors we shall have the opportunity to compete on equal terms in an unrestricted way and add value in both sectors.
I thank my right hon. Friend for writing to me in the past week announcing the new Cotswolds environmentally sensitive area. It is part of his new agri-environmental package amounting to £31 million, with an extra £12 million for the six new environmentally sensitive areas. My farmers in Cirencester and Tewkesbury and in the Cotswolds will be grateful for his action, and will grasp the opportunity with alacrity. I quote my right hon. Friend's description of the Cotswold hills, because it sums up my constituency beautifully
The Cotswold hills are an outstanding example of limestone scenery. The area is dominated by steep escarpment rising dramatically from the vales of Berkeley, Gloucestershire and Evesham.
[Interruption.] I suggest to some of my hon. Friends who are conducting conversations that, if they listened more and came to my constituency, tourism might benefit considerably.
The many hours that my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State spend in Brussels trying to negotiate a satisfactory reform of the CAP must be frustrating in the extreme. I assure them that I am aware of the hours, days and nights that they spend there trying to produce a suitable package, only to return here to be greeted with carping criticism, more carping and more criticism, from Opposition Members who never produce any positive proposals of their own.
The package that the Minister managed eventually to negotiate, contrary to the original prediction that Ray MacSharry would sell us all down the river and that our farmers would be put out of business, represents a considerable step forward. In the current economic climate, with GATT not having been renegotiated and the CAP in the middle of renegotiation, no Minister or farmer can be certain what the future holds.
I am delighted that the socialist Government of France have been chucked out. They were unreliable and useless. I hope that the incoming Prime Minister, Mr. Balladur, and his Ministers will not seek to revisit the agricultural part of the GATT negotiations. If they do, the whole thing will unravel and we shall not stand a chance of securing the Uruguay round.
I remind the House that not only the farmers of the western civilised economies benefit from the GATT round —[Interruption.] I urge Opposition Members to listen to me more carefully. Instead of being critical, they should listen and learn. Those who benefit most from the conclusion of any GATT round are the poor countries of the third world. They desperately need to trade their produce. If trade barriers are erected against them, they will continue to remain poor and rely on overseas aid. I am all for trade with the third world and want open and free trade to remain the order of the day for as long as possible.
The shift in support from the processor to the producer is an important part of the reform. Much has been said about CAP money merely going to producers and lining the pockets of skilful entrepreneurs instead of going to the farmers, the primary producers, who need the aid. Support is best given in that way, for four reasons. First, we need to target the huge amount of money that will be given out under the CAP. We can target it to produce benefits that the public really want, environmentally friendly farming systems and more organic farming. Organic farming is not the panacea that many environmental organisations would claim, but at least it has a place. Any mechanisms that my right hon. Friend can negotiate under the CAP reforms to encourage it must be of benefit to the general public, and particularly to those who want to buy organically produced goods. An increasing number of consumers want such goods.
Secondly, it has been possible to produce a Communitywide scheme. In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), I made the point that a Communitywide scheme would cut out fraud. It does not behove any hon. Member to say, "Why have we got this scheme, when the Italians, the Greeks, the Portuguese and the Irish will not enforce it?" My right hon. Friend should go to Brussels with all guns blazing and produce a scheme which everybody will enforce. It we enforce a scheme and others do not, we will become less and less competitive. I shall come back to anti-fraud measures.
Thirdly, contrary to all the rumours and predictions about what Ray MacSharry would inflict on us, the package has not discriminated against our large farmers. There were scare stories about them being penalised, but there will still be a level playing field. That was a significant achievement by my right hon. Friend.
Fourthly, the package is particularly advantageous to the United Kingdom, because it will increase our proportion of the CAP budget from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale: (Mr. Greenway) said, that represents a 30 per cent. increase. There will be an additional £1 billion this year and an additional £1·5 billion next year. These are important extra funds which my right hon. Friend has managed to negotiate for our farmers.
On the enforcement aspect of the package, as hon. Members will be aware, part of the package is the production of a new, integrated administrative control system. If I achieve one thing in the debate, it is to say to farmers that, if they do not fill in the forms by 15 May, they will not get the money to which they are entitled.
The package is not complicated. I have read all 80 pages which accompany it. The booklet is fairly readable for those who take time to peruse it. Much information is needed to fill in the forms. No doubt we will get many letters from our constituent farmers in the next few weeks about the forms. Farmers should sit down and read the booklet. It is not complicated: my right hon. Friend and his civil servants have done a good job in making it as simple as possible.
I do not believe that it is beyond the capability of most farmers to fill in the forms correctly. I stress that they should get on with it as soon as possible. As my right hon. Friend said, they have to lodge an application to the Ordnance Survey to be sure of getting the maps. The date of 15 April is not far hence. Therefore, the loud and clear message to all farmers is that they should get the maps and

get their forms into my right hon. Friend's divisional offices. If the forms are submitted in good time, officials will have a chance to look at them and send them back if they are wrong. If farmers submit their applications on 15 May, the deadline, there will be no time for the Department to send them back. I urge farmers to fill in the forms correctly. The message is that they should fill in the forms if they want the money. As my right hon. Friend said, an important point about the forms is that similar requirements will be produced for the other 11 member states.
The committee which will be responsible for implementing the system will be able to scrutinise the forms after 15 May. It will be able to scrutinise and demand production of the forms of individual properties of farmers in the member states to see whether they have been filled in properly. All sorts of new enforcement-checking measures, including aerial photography, will be available. It will be easy for us to demand that aerial photographs be taken of areas of Greece, Portugal and Spain to see whether farmers in those countries have completed the forms and whether the aggregate figures on the forms confirm the totals which one is able to glean from the photographs. The age of compliance is upon farmers in all the member states.
An important part of Maastricht is the new increased powers provided for the Court of Auditors. We have been told that the common agricultural policy budget this year will be 34 billion ecu. I do not want my taxpayers' money to go to Spanish, Portuguese, German or any other farmers if it does not go to the people who are entitled to it. As a British taxpayer and a British farmer, I want to see enforcement across the Community, and I will be urging my right hon. Friend every step of the way to ensure that that happens.
We all want security in the future for our farmers. For the past 15 to 20 years, farmers have been telling us that that is absolutely paramount. However, it is difficult, especially with the new Democratic Administration in the United States. I was in the United States before Christmas, and there is no doubt that those Democratic senators whom Labour Members so revere are increasingly protectionist. They do not want to see a GATT agreement or the north American free trade agreement: they want protectionism.
For all the reasons which I gave earlier, it is absolutely essential for the United Kingdom—where 40 per cent. of our total gross domestic product is exported—that we have as free and fair trade across the world as we can possibly manage. I repeat loud and clear my earlier comments: I hope that no EC Government will want to renegotiate the agricultural part of GATT. It will be difficult enough to get the textile, steel and various other parts of GATT negotiated. I hope that Labour Members will welcome the motion and support it in every possible way.
My right hon. Friend has worked extremely hard to get a fair package for our farmers. The package will give them a thoroughly good deal in the current economic circumstances provided by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, of low inflation, no unit wage cost increases at all this year and low interest rates. Those are precisely the conditions which farmers and all businesses need to succeed in the United Kingdom. They now have the opportunity. They should reduce their debts, accelerate


their investment programmes and make hay while the sun shines, because things may not be quite as rosy in the future.
I hope that Labour Members will welcome what my right hon. Friend has achieved. When I explain my comments to constituent farmers up and down the country, they will realise that this Conservative Government have treated them as well as could possibly be done in the circumstances by any Minister negotiating for us in Brussels.

Mr. George Walden: I shall be brief, not least because I was, unfortunately, not able to be in my place for the earlier part of the debate, for which I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State was kind enough to meet Buckinghamshire farmers recently. Many issues were discussed, and he produced a persuasive and useful performance, not least on the potato issue. Buckinghamshire farmers are grateful to my hon. Friend.
I shall not say that my right hon.Friend the Minister is said by the farmers in my constituency to be doing a good job; they have not said that. I judge from the relative lack of complaints that he is doing a brilliant job. Nowadays, I do not hear so often the traditional complaints. Instead, I am told about bureaucracy and petty controls. Time and again, individual farmers and the National Farmers Union, at group meetings in my constituency, produce the most mind-boggling examples of ever-increasing bureaucracy.
Despite what has been said about the integrated support system, a farmer who is engaged in small or medium mixed farming is almost overwhelmed with form filling. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will remember that the matter was raised when he met Buckinghamshire farmers. If it is conceivable, I ask him at Brussels to find ways of reducing the bureaucracy that is being imposed on farmers, and especially those who run small and medium farms.
The Government are right to say that farming incomes have increased considerably–22 per cent. is quoted. However, farmers are hard-headed people, and after being a Member for about a year I stopped trying to soft-soap them in any way. Nowadays, we tend to talk rather more realistically, and it seems that there are three realistic things that have to be said about farming in future.
First, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) was right to say that we should not make too much of the improvement in farm incomes, which has come fortuitously through the revaluation of the pound. But how far can we base the future of the industry on devaluation? I think that my doubts are felt generally by those who are engaged in agriculture.
My hunch is that, over the next few months, the French Government will decide that they cannot sustain the power of the franc and will find a way to devalue it. Leaving aside what will happen to the exchange rate mechanism, that will have a damaging effect on the United Kingdom. We shall find that we are engaged in competitive devaluation. Farmers had a good year last year, and things may not be too bad this year, but we must be realistic. It must be accepted, however, that the way forward for us and the French is not competitive devaluation.
Secondly, there is the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It is not popular to say this—for that reason, I shall say it—but the French have a point on GATT. Perhaps that is a terrible thing to say, but it is true. It is not by chance that all French political parties feel constrained to support the farmers. It is because the social structure of France is entirely different from that of the United Kingdom. Agriculture in France is crucial for the viability of many small towns, as well as for individual farmers. Enormous numbers of people live in small towns, rather than the huge and anonymous areas of suburbia in the United Kingdom. That is a fact of life.
Political pressures in France, whether we welcome them or not, to take a tough line on the GATT will not go away. We might as well reconcile ourselves to a tough struggle. The French will be pretty hard-line after their election, and we know the presidential election is due in two years. We do not make life easier for ourselves by denouncing the French as self-seeking or as wreckers. There are strong social and political pressures, and the French Government, whatever complexion they may have, will react to them. If we do not take account of that reality, we shall make life difficult for ourselves. When I talk to farmers, I find that they recognise that reality perfectly, because they are in the same business. So let us be realistic about that.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister understands that, in the long term, British and western European agriculture has not even started to face difficulties. We shall face increasing competition from eastern Europe. Only the artificial sterilising effect of communism has stopped us facing that competition in the past. People in eastern Europe and Russia are not congenitally unable to produce things: it is only that their political system has prevented them from doing so. So, one of these years, they will start growing and exporting things.
If western Europe wants to export industrial products to former communist countries, it will have to come to some accommodation with them. I shall not go into that now, but my local farmers and undoubtedly the farmers in my hon. Friends' constituencies are perfectly aware that the troubles of British agriculture are not over. They know that geographical—and, if you like, historical—pressures will come to bear on them.
Diversification will be the name of the game in future, as it has been in the past few years. That is not new to my hon. Friend the Minister, but, while respecting all the environmental desiderata, we need realism in the planning regime if farmers are to be kept in business.

Agricultural Prices

Mr. Elliot Morley: This has been a wide-ranging and important debate. It is an opportunity to discuss the common agricultural policy, which is of major significance to the people of Britain, given the enormous amounts of money that they contribute. The fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised serious and important issues demonstrates that people's attention is directed towards the CAP.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). It is not carping to express some reservations about the operation of the CAP, given the problems with it. We are still saddled with a Frankenstein's monster. It is hugely expensive. It is inefficient. It is damaging to world trade. It traps farmers into growing simply for subsidies, not to meet market demands. Almost every hon. Member would accept that that is the fundamental weakness of a system of the nature of the CAP. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said in his excellent speech, even though the purpose of the CAP reforms was to bring the budget under control, the cost is still spiralling.
The debate is an opportunity to evaluate the reforms of May 1992. The Opposition are entitled to criticise certain aspects of the review. When the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the reform, he was treated as a hero coming back from some battle abroad. One was surprised that some of his Back-Bench Members did not throw down rose petals and offer him a laurel crown. We should evaluate just what was achieved in May 1992, whether the reform of the CAP has been the great success that was claimed by the Minister and whether it will meet the objectives that were laid out then.
I remind the House that the Minister said last year that the reforms would cut £8 billion off the CAP budget. At the time the Labour party expressed some doubt about that. I still express doubt about it, given what we have heard today about the problems of controlling the CAP budget. There is also the question whether the reforms have helped all our farmers, as some people have claimed.
Like other hon. Members, I attended a conference of small farmers today. The Minister was present. It was a pity that he did not share the platform with me and other parliamentarians, as was originally promised and was on the agenda. Those small farmers made it clear that they did not believe that the CAP would work to their advantage as it has been reformed. I am sure that they made their views known to the Minister when he addressed them this afternoon.
We need to consider the attitude of the incoming French Government to the CAP. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made some pertinent and sensible points about that. The French Government are not sending the right signals to either their farmers or their fishermen by suggesting that they can renegotiate GATT and CAP agreements. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to the French Government that that does not set a good example to their farmers and fishermen, who now think that they can ignore bilateral agreements made in good faith.
At the heart of last year's reforms is compulsory set-aside. I shall concentrate the majority of my remarks on that and on the agri-environmental programme. Both are important areas that need reform. Although we have made valid criticisms of the agreement, I also want to make some suggestions, which I hope the Minister will think are constructive.
Set-aside was advocated by the Government even before the MacSharry proposals. It was introduced in Britain on a voluntary basis in 1988. I believe it to be a negative way to use large sums of public money and a number of hon. Members have clearly stated that they share that view. In its current form, the benefit of cutting production is doubtful. Like the previous system, the scheme benefits large farms—the larger the farm, the greater the benefit. Indeed, a report in The Sunday Times suggests that at least one landowner is receiving an income of £30,000 a year for putting his land into the voluntary set-aside scheme. Taxpayers and owners of small businesses will want to question whether that is good value for public money and whether the scheme actually provides worthwhile benefits.
The new scheme is virtually compulsory for larger farms, which must put 15 per cent. of their cereal production land into set-aside. In crude terms, the potential of that is enormous: 1·5 million acres, which is an area the size of Lincolnshire, being put into set-aside. The package of set-aside payments—the compensation that farmers can claim if they meet the targets—has increased CAP costs by 5 billion ecus, which at current prices is £3·5 billion. How can that help to achieve the target of reducing CAP costs by £8 billion?
So far, even the curbing of production—the very principle underlying set-aside—has not been that successful. Cereal production has actually risen since 1988, when the voluntary scheme was introduced. According to MAFF's figures, in 1988 some 21·1 million tonnes were produced; by 1991 that had increased to 22·6 million tonnes; and even in 1992 the figure was 21·1 million tonnes —the same as 1988—despite the fact that it was a wet year, which affected production.
I am sure that farmers would agree that set-aside is a public relations disaster for them. A Friends of the Earth publication "Set-aside: money for nothing" quoted a Northumberland farmer, Mr. Adam Harrison, as saying:
If the object of the exercise had been to make farmers look feather-bedded, parasitic, corrupt and incompetent, then the new-look CAP could hardly have been bettered.
Those are strong words, but farmers in my constituency tell me that they are concerned about the way in which set-aside is used and about the image that it reflects on them.
Set-aside has also cost jobs. Research by the Centre for Agricultural Studies shows that a full-time job is lost for every 130 hectares set aside. Moreover, under the present scheme the environmental benefits of set-aside are extremely doubtful. It is certainly not a return to the old system of rotation in the modern agricultural system; it means that production is intensified in the parts of farmland that are not set aside. Some of the more sensible uses of set-aside have not been encouraged.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) about biofuels. I do not think that the recent Budget helped to encourage their use, although it surely gave the Chancellor an opportunity to provide some tax encouragement. At present, biodiesel is treated in


exactly the same way as ordinary diesel in terms of duty. Rather than allowing fields to be set aside, doing nothing, the Government could encourage biofuel production—not only in the context of oilseed, but in the context of fast-growing coppice, which can be cropped and used for biofuel. That was not encouraged in the Budget; nor has it been encouraged in provision for research and development.
This morning I attended a conference with small farmers. It emerged very strongly that they feel betrayed in relation to research and development. Organisations such as ADAS—a useful organisation with a proud track record—are being turned, more or less, into private consultancies. Many small farmers simply cannot afford the assistance provided by such consultancies. If we are to encourage a more constructive use of set-aside—biofuels are just one example; there are one or two others—both ADAS and the Government have important roles to play.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with what the Select Committee on the Environment said this week? The Committee said that it was extremely important for forestry to have its proper place in set-aside and that permanent set-aside—as it comes to be discussed by the European Commission—included the possibility of long-term planning for extra forestry in this country and elsewhere, involving all sorts of environmental benefits, both global and national.

Mr. Morley: I acknowledge that, and I pay tribute to the Select Committee's report. I thought that it made a useful contribution to this issue and, indeed, to forestry in general. I will go further and commend to the Minister the recent report of the Countryside Commission, which has also considered farm forestry and the expansion of forests. Our country has one of the lowest levels of afforestation in Europe and set-aside certainly provides opportunities in that regard—particularly in the agri-environmental package, to which I shall refer later.
We need a major reform of the common agricultural policy. We need to sweep away as many forms of production and intervention support as possible, along with all the bureaucracy that goes with them. United Kingdom farmers are efficient; they can stand up for themselves and compete, as long as they are given a level playing field. The massive sums involved in the CAP should be shifted towards environmental support and away from production support—and, if necessary, towards social support, so that people can be maintained on the land. We should ensure that small farmers are supported and rural communities and their social fabric are protected.
The Minister may well refer to the advantages of the agri-environmental package and to measures that the Government have introduced—for instance, environmentally sensitive areas, countryside stewardship schemes and naturally sensitive area schemes. I shall not be churlish; those schemes are very welcome. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East pointed out, they have long been Labour party policy and we argued for them long before they were fashionable. However, all those measures —welcome though they are—must be seen in the context of the huge spending involved in the CAP. They are tiny in comparison with the money directed towards them.
As we said earlier, diversification will become increasingly important. I accept that; I also accept that we need an integrated approach to rural policy. Diversification need not go against present planning laws, but the number of applications for golf courses shows that certain forms of diversification can go too far. I have nothing against golf courses, which sometimes are a useful form of diversification, but the number of applications for golf courses in, for example, the Sevenoaks area makes one wonder where all the golfers will come from and who the proposed courses are for, because they cannot be for the benefit of local people. At the current rate of applications in the Kent area, there will be one golf course for each Kent resident.
I recently visited Kent and was accompanied by the excellent Labour councillor, Sarah Goodall, who showed me around the area and drew my attention to the problem. A balance needs to be struck, and I hope that the Minister will issue guidance to local authorities in this respect.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I live in the middle of a golf course in Kent—it has been built around me—for which there is a considerable waiting list. The demand to play golf in Kent seems insatiable.

Mr. Morley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is so insatiable that everyone will live in the middle of a golf course, because some people might object to how that affects the traditional countryside in Kent. Although there is a role for golf courses in diversification, a balance must be struck.
The Minister recently announced a number of proposals, the first of which was the extension of ESAs, which is very welcome. Secondly, there is the moorland scheme to reduce grazing and, thirdly, the meadowland scheme to create public access and a review of set-aside management, which will include wildlife corridors on margins and watersides and specialist options, which I presume would involve conservation headlands.
All those measures are welcome, but if the Minister is proposing to use public money to negotiate public access, to which I do not object, I hope that he is not agreeing with the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who was talking about charging for public access. If taxpayers' money is used for such a scheme, the public will contribute twice. Although it is a legitimate use of taxpayers' money, I do not think that the public should pay twice. I hope that the Minister is not contemplating such a payment, which could be regarded as a stroll tax on using the countryside.
If the Minister is reviewing set-aside management as part of the agri-environmental package, will he argue for the use of light grazing on set-aside land, which currently is banned, as a conservation measure to control meadows? I believe that such use is proper and I hope that he will raise that point with the Commission.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the dates for mowing set-aside land and the effect that that has on ground-nesting species. That important point was well made.
I note that the habitat improvement scheme, which is linked to water margins, includes coastlines. Is that part of the planned retreat concept that the Minister has discussed, although it is not spelt out in the package? Nevertheless, it is welcome and useful.
Proposals have been made to assist organic farming. I hope that the Minister notes the comments of the Soil


Association and the SAFE—Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment—alliance, which argue that existing organic farmers—those who have made an investment—should receive some support.
Those are the suggestions that the Minister has made. We believe that that is exactly the kind of policy that we want to see.
We part company with the Minister, however, over the fact that the total finance for the agri-environmental package comes to a measly £19 million over three years, taking away the ESA element. The Community's budget for the agri-environmental package is less than 1 per cent. of the CAP budget. I do not believe that environmental issues will be given a high priority when only 1 per cent. of the CAP budget is being devoted to them. That pales into insignificance when compared with the £2 billion which the United Kingdom will spend on the CAP.
It is no wonder that the Council for the Protection of Rural England said of the scheme in its press release "MAFF Misses Target" that
serious funding has not been attached to it".
Although the Country Landowners Association welcomes the measures, in a press release that hon. Members will have seen, it said that the funding was totally inadequate.
With reference to moving to a more sophisticated range of measures, I commend to the Minister the CPRE document "Green or Mean", which outlines an extremely constructive method of using the agri-environmental package and reforming the CAP as we would wish.
The House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities produced a report entitled "The Environmental Aspects of the Reform of the CAP". It included a detailed set of environmental measures as an alternative to the set-aside proposals which are currently the heart of the CAP package. I took special note of the following comment:
The Committee supports the call for payments to be made to farmers for delivering positive environmental benefits rather than doing environmental mischief. We favour payments for achieving certain pre-determined targets.
I noted the Minister's opening remark that he favoured cross-compliance and wanted to target environmental support. I very much welcome that, but it is important that any shift of CAP funding to environmental support for agriculture is not used to pay farmers to stop doing what they should be doing in the first place. Payment should be made for improvements in countryside and environmental management.
As yet, there is no evidence that environmental measures are at the heart of the CAP. When the Minister returned from Brussels last year, he said that environmental measures were at the heart of the CAP but, as I have said, only 1 per cent. of the budget and a measly £19 million over three years are being devoted to such measures. At present, the CAP is a wasteful system which distorts markets. There needs to be a complete change. Environmental changes should be an integral part of the CAP and should not be regarded as a bolt-on extra as they are now.
We want a comprehensive and integrated approach to rural issues, which notes not only the cultural and social values of farming but the rural infrastructure of which the Government should take account. There should be proper rural transport, affordable rented homes, job and training

opportunities and support for small village schools, shops and sub-post offices. Many of the latter are threatened by privatisation, which will not help rural communities.
We want clear objectives for support payments and a proper evaluation of the schemes that have been introduced. We welcome the identification of ESAs, which we regard as the way forward, but the money must be spent wisely. We want a rethink on the set-aside policy as it forms the basis of the CAP package.
We hope that the Government will recognise that there is now an opportunity to assist and stabilise agriculture, to protect and enhance our environment and to bring the benefits to all people, whether they live in urban or rural areas. We are currently spending a great deal of money on a wasteful and destructive system. The Opposition believe that people in this country, including farmers, are entitled to a better deal than the one that they are getting under the CAP.
We believe that we have to move in the direction suggested by the agri-environmental package and we want the CAP to be completely restructured. I do not say that that can be done overnight, or that it will be easy to negotiate with other countries to achieve it. But I believe that there is widespread support for such action across all European member states and certainly among the people of this country, whether they live in villages, towns, cities or hamlets. If the Government really believe that environmental measures should be at the heart of the CAP, they should demonstrate that by arguing for such restructuring and certainly by devoting more than a measly and inadequate £19 million over three years to it.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I shall begin with one piece of arithmetic that is essential in discussing what happens with the CAP in Brussels. There are 76 votes in the Council of Ministers, and a qualified majority consists of 54 votes. Even if one is the archangel Gabriel—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is probably closer to the archangel Gabriel than is any other member of the Council—if one does not get 54 votes one does not get one's policy adopted. So it is no earthly use Uncle Tom Cobbley and all telling us what they will do, how they will do it, and what they will insist on; if they do not get 54 votes, that is all words, words and nothing but words.
I know that this is all most offensive to the Opposition, but the fact of the matter is that that my right hon. Friend came back with a triumph for Britain. The MacSharry proposals had to be our starting point. And what were those proposals? They were a massive piece of institutionalised discrimination against British farmers—and we wiped them out. The Opposition said that we could not do it, and of course they did not want us to do it, because that would be inconvenient for them, but we delivered on what we had promised and the farming community knows that we did.

Mr. Morley: If the Minister has delivered what he promised, will he tell us whether the £8 billion will be cut from the CAP budget?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely innumerate. There has been a major switch in the CAP from commodity support to direct support. That is what


the hon. Gentleman says that he favours, because that is what his amendment says. There is a switch in support to budgetary cost from economic cost. The gain to the consumers is the gain in total economic transfers, not a gain in budgetary costs. We have said that from the start. That is at the heart of any policy designed to switch support from the commodity. To switch support to direct income aid and support to farmers will show up in enhanced budgetary costs, because to do so reduces the economic transfers at the heart of the income switches within the system.
There have been changes in the Council. Many hon. Members have referred to the new French Government. My right hon. Friend is now the doyen of the Agriculture Council. After only three and a half years we are on our fourth French Minister, there have been three or four Irish Ministers, and I believe that the Italians have reached number five. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) will be glad to hear that Alfredo Diana, a former colleague of ours in the European Parliament, is now the Italian Minister of Agriculture. He has a significant stake in the Italian buffalo herd, so no doubt that will give the Opposition something else to complain about. The number of Greeks has been beyond count, on immediate recollection. If we have done so badly, it is amazing that we are still there and all the others have gone. I believe that we are still here because we have delivered.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) talked about GATT. It is amazing how such talk is usually framed in terms of what Europe has to do to deliver. It takes two to tango on the GATT, and we have to hear from the United States, too. We have to hear that the Americans wish to renew their fast track authority, and that the Blair house agreement remains the foundation for the agreement on agriculture. The simple fact is that we shall not see a major departure from that agreement constitute the basis for an agreement on agriculture. Many other sectors have to be dealt with, too.
Let me answer directly what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said about national aid to France and to the sheepmeat sector. May I ask him if he would put these figures into the equation? I am talking now about exports of British products to France, and about live sheep. In 1991 they were up by 48 per cent. over 1990. In 1992 they were up by 63 per cent. over 1991. On sheepmeat, they were up by 36 per cent. in 1992 over 1991. In other words, we are capturing that French market. We are successful in that market. Then look at the help for British producers. Of course the devaluation helped us on our way—we do not pretend that that is not the case—but it is there and it is real, and if we had not negotiated the end of the monetary compensatory amount system that would not have come through in the benefits for farmers. It is clear what we have achieved.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Devaluation is an indicator of a policy failure.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the devaluation was an indication of the reverse of Government policy. What I am saying is that, as far as that affects farmers, unless we had abolished the MCA system,

we would have had what existed when Labour was in power—a massive green pound gap and farmers denied the benefit of that. We have brought that to an end.

Mr. Stevenson: rose—

Mr. Curry: I will give the figures and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who has kept his practice from the European Parliament of making long, boring speeches.
Look at the help for producers. The ewe premium increase from the green pound factor is up by £2·65, and the additional payment for less favoured area producers is up by £2·20 a ewe. So who is winning in the battle for sheepmeat production and the battle for lamb production? It is clearly the United Kingdom. That is the point that I would ask him to put into this equation.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) is absolutely bursting to get in.

Mr. Stevenson: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that the Minister is obviously bored to tears. That is obvious from his presentation. He referred to the unanimous agreement of the Council to allow the French Government to subsidise its sheep producers, and then he related that to the way in which we were capturing more of the French market. Surely the logic of that is that if we capture even more of the market we shall allow the French to give even more national aid. Would he care to comment on that? What he said did not quite gell.

Mr. Curry: That is not how it was at all. We had a request from the French Government. The Council of Ministers traditionally shows a certain competence when member Governments have problems that they wish to solve. That is what the Community is about. The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of the European Parliament, will know that that is the case. He has sat in the Agriculture Committee, among others. He will know that that is the tradition by which the Community does business. There comes a point where we can say that we want nothing to do with a particular matter, that we will stick out against it and that this particular thing will not pass, and we all know that there is a point at which we are going to say that we need some benefit for ourselves or a difficulty that we need to resolve.
This happened when we came up to the problem on linseed, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred. There we pointed out that the Commission had made a mess of it, that we were in danger of linseed being put into the area aid payment while the seed was in the ground and that before farmers knew where they were we would have an absolute botch-up, and we needed to get an agreement that such a thing would not happen. The export of live horses has also been mentioned. Hon. Members will have received more letters on that subject than on many other issues. That and whales appear to command the particular affection of the British population. If we had not argued a special case, we would not have got the ability to do it. So I make no apology for it. It is part of the lubricant, part of the way in which the Community works.

Mr. Harris: If I may say so, my hon. Friend has missed the point that I was making. I do not necessarily blame him for that. The point that I was making was that the trade-off which was apparently entered into by our right hon. Friend was on the assurance that the French Government would do what they were supposed to do


anyway, guarantee reasonable access for our products into France. That is how it appears in the letter that he himself wrote, and of which I have a copy, to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.

Mr. Curry: What my right hon. Friend said was that there was no way that we would even agree to this being on the agenda for discussion unless the French made it clear that they would fulfil their obligations as members of the Community in respect of our trade. I must point out to my hon. Friend that we do not have a quarrel with the French Government in this respect. We have a quarrel with a good many of its citizens because of their actions, but when it came to encouraging the French Government to resolve the difficulty we had an effective response; and now that there is a new Government in power and we have opposite numbers at last we shall seek to renew those responses as soon as we can make contact with them.
Many hon. Members mentioned the GATT talks. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, a crucial decision has to be made. The talks have wide implications and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, GATT is one of the fundamental questions that will determine the way in which agriculture goes in future. I accept his point that eastern and central Europe is the shadow looming just over the horizon at the moment. It may change our agriculture more fundamentally than will the GATT and the CAP reforms put together. That is a fundamental question that we must face.
We debated the sugar regime in Committee this morning, so I will not repeat the points on that on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I dealt with the matter at some length this morning. Clearly, reform is necessary for that regime. It could be argued that it is the least attractive part of the CAP—there are a fair number of candidates for that appellation. The implications for developing countries are especially important. It is, therefore, one of the regimes that need change both because it says something about the way in which the Community works and because it has particular relevance to countries that are dependent on it.
We have rotational set-aside because we needed to take action quickly to reduce production. That has been the story of the CAP over the years. A number of years ago, people said that we needed change and that we must have high prices. There has been a history of Ministers not wishing to grasp those decisions. One gets to the point at which one must take more radical action to deal with the matter quickly. We wish that that were not the case. We are not the Government who have been unwilling to take those more difficult decisions early on. We have found that because of the 54 votes, other Governments have not been willing to take such decisions. We end up with a far more radical proposal. If one is sensible, one tries to build on that and to make something constructive out of it. We are trying to build the non-rotational scheme on to it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) welcomes that, because of the environmental benefits that can be attached. Permanent set-aside was suggested because the creation of woodlands and habitats can be linked. That will make out of a scheme that has its disadvantages something that can create a positive good.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who is overcome with tiredness at this stage, proposed a

series of objectives, but no mechanisms by which to reach the objectives. The amendment is full of many extremely virtuous objectives that we should probably all like to attain, but no mechanism is specified as to how we can get from here to there. It is easy to list virtuous objectives, but if one wants the 54 votes one must have the mechanism and it must be agreed by everyone else on the Council. If not, it is not even worth trying.
Let us be equally clear about the forms. Farmers will receive a lot of money through the post. There is no point in blinking that fact or pretending that it is not the case. It will be the taxpayers' money that they receive. We must therefore ensure two points—that those who are entitled to the money get it, and that those who get the money know that it is properly accounted for because it is part of public expenditure. If one is running the scheme through the framework of supply management, there is no way in which to achieve those two points without ensuring that one knows who is getting what. That means that farmers will have to fill in forms to get the money. Farmers are filing in forms for their own income. We have, of course, made the forms as simple and sensible as we can. However, the need to have such forms is inescapable because taxpayers' money is involved. Next year, about 1·7 billion of taxpayers' money will ride on those forms. It is therefore reasonable that farmers —who are, after all, business men although they may not perceive themselves as such should deliver the forms that will guarantee their own livelihoods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the problem of the mowing and cutting date and referred to I May. The date of I May is fixed for the United Kingdom as the first date on which a farmer can replace winter cover with bare fallow or with another cover, but not a crop. However, he does not have to cut as early as 1 May. He must cut at least once by 1 July, so the cutting can be delayed into June for environmental reasons, such as nesting birds. Farmers may apply to delay the cutting beyond 1 July if there are genuine environmental reasons. I am sensitive to these issues as there is in my constituency an environmentally sensitive area where late cutting dates allow seed pods to settle, flowers to seed, and nesting birds to complete their cycle of reproduction. That is very important.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made at least one point with which I agree—that farming in Europe will have to face more competition in the world market if we are genuinely in a liberalising environment. We do not yet know whether we are. The GATT deal has not been multilateralised; it is simply a bilateral understanding between the Community and the United States, which has to be transformed into a deal. Because we saw that competition, we wanted the aids to be transitional and degressive. We did not want them to be permanent and, indeed, they are not permanent. We want to move agriculture to a lower-cost structure to make it more competitive. We all recognise the danger that the Community could lock itself into a high-cost system and then turn a protectionist face to the outside world. That is why we would have preferred to look for a more subtle mechanism.
Farming has got over the hump of great uncertainty, but there are more uncertainties to come, as much reform has still to be pursued. In addition, some things have not been reformed sufficiently or well enough. We all know that the beef sector is a particular problem which will


return. At this time last year we would have been arguing that MacSharry was the great threat on the horizon. That threat has now dissipated, the situation has been brought under control, and farmers have benefited significantly. Thus, we are at last able, on the basis of an improving income, to say that it is a time for investment, for confidence and for opportunity, and that the Government have delivered it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 209.

Division No. 228]
[11.16 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Ainger, Nick
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Ashton, Joe
Keen, Alan


Austin-Walker, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Khabra, Piara S.


Barnes, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Battle, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Bayley, Hugh
Leighton, Ron


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Loyden, Eddie


Benton, Joe
McAllion, John


Bermingham, Gerald
McAvoy, Thomas


Betts, Clive
McCartney, Ian


Boyce, Jimmy
McFall, John


Bradley, Keith
McKelvey, William


Burden, Richard
McWiiliam, John


Callaghan, Jim
Madden, Max


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meale, Alan


Cann, Jamie
Michael, Alun


Chisholm, Malcolm
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clapham, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Morley, Elliot


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Coffey, Ann
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mudie, George


Cousins, Jim
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davidson, Ian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Denham, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Purchase, Ken


Dowd, Jim
Quin, Ms Joyce


Eagle, Ms Angela
Raynsford, Nick


Enright, Derek
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Etherington, Bill
Rooker, Jeff


Flynn, Paul
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Sheerman, Barry


George, Bruce
Short, Clare


Gerrard, Neil
Simpson, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Godsiff, Roger
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Soley, Clive


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Spearing, Nigel


Grocott, Bruce
Stevenson, George


Gunnell, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Hanson, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hardy, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wareing, Robert N


Hoey, Kate
Watson, Mike


Home Robertson, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Hoon, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Mr. Jack Thompson.


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Gorst, John


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Amess, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Arbuthnot, James
Hague, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hannam, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bates, Michael
Harris, David


Bellingham, Henry
Haselhurst, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hayes, Jerry


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Heald, Oliver


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Hendry, Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Horam, John


Bowis, John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brandreth, Gyles
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Brazier, Julian
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Jack, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jenkin, Bernard


Burns, Simon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Butler, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Butterfill, John
Kilfedder, Sir James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Carrington, Matthew
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Churchill, Mr
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Knox, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coe, Sebastian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Colvin, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Congdon, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Legg, Barry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Leigh, Edward


Couchman, James
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lidington, David


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Lightbown, David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Luff, Peter


Day, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Madel, David


Devlin, Tim
Maitland, Lady Olga


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Mans, Keith


Duncan, Alan
Marland, Paul


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Merchant, Piers


Elletson, Harold
Milligan, Stephen


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mills, Iain


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Moate, Sir Roger


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Evennett, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Nicholls, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Paice, James


Freeman, Roger
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


French, Douglas
Pickles, Eric


Fry, Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gallie, Phil
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Rathbone, Tim


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Richards, Rod






Riddick, Graham
Thomason, Roy


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sackville, Tom
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconslield)
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spink, Dr Robert
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Stephen, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan
Wood, Timothy


Sweeney, Walter



Sykes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 70.

Division No. 229]
[11 29 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butler, Peter
Fry, Peter


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garnier, Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Flochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David


Couchman, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hawkins, Nick


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Hayes, Jerry


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Heald, Oliver





Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hendry, Charles
Rathbone, Tim


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Redwood, John


Horam, John
Richards, Rod


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Tom


Jenkin, Bernard
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Spencer, Sir Derek


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knapman, Roger
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spring, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sproat, Iain


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Steen, Anthony


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stephen, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Stewart, Allan


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sweeney, Walter


Legg, Barry
Sykes, John


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lidington, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lightbown, David
Thomason, Roy


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Luff, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Madel, David
Trend, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Twinn, Dr Ian


Malone, Gerald
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mans, Keith
Walden, George


Marland, Paul
Waller, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Ward, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Merchant, Piers
Waterson, Nigel


Milligan, Stephen
Watts, John


Mills, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Moate, Sir Roger
Whittingdale, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nelson, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James



Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pickles, Eric
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. Irvine Patnick.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Gerrard, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Austin-Walker, John
Godsiff, Roger


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Battle, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bayley, Hugh
Hanson, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Harvey, Nick


Bermingham, Gerald
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Boyce, Jimmy
Home Robertson, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Khabra, Piara S.


Chisholm, Malcolm
Leighton, Ron


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McFall, John


Davidson, Ian
Maclennan, Robert


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dowd, Jim
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Meale, Alan


Enright, Derek
Michael, Alun






Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


Mudie, George
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Stevenson, George


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Watson, Mike


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Wilson, Brian


Roche, Mrs. Barbara



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Noes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Simpson, Alan
Mr. Don Foster.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4608/93, on the prices for agricultural products and on related measures, 1993–94; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the price proposals which takes account of the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers, builds upon the 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reforms, and takes full account of the realities of the budgetary situation.

PROCEDURE (PUBLIC PETITIONS)

Ordered,

That this House approves the recommendations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Fourth Report of Session 1991–92 from the Select Committee on Procedure, relating to Public Petitions (HC 286).—[Mr. David Davis.]

PETITIONS

Health Nursing (Liverpool)

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I present a petition that has been signed by 8,000 citizens of Liverpool who are concerned about the reorganisation of district health nursing, which is being reduced from 89·5 FTE to 57. The people of Liverpool depend more and more on qualified nurses in the district health service. It is interesting that Liverpool pioneered district nursing in the 1860s when Florence Nightingale and a social worker in Liverpool, a man who wrote much about the problems of the city, William Rathbone, joined to make, as it were, the first district nurse in the United Kingdom. It is significant that the response of the people of Liverpool to cuts in the service has reached the level of open opposition to the trust scheme.
Therefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House requests that the Secretary of State for Health intervenes to ensure that this reduction in service is prevented and that the level and quality of services provided by the district nursing service in North Mersey is protected and enhanced to meet the real needs of the community.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

A92 (Traffic)

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I present a petition that has been signed by 2,239 of my constituents in the communities that are affected by the Government's failure to fulfil their commitment to upgrade the A92, which runs between Aberdeen and Ellon, to the north of the city. The collection of the petition has been co-ordinated by local, regional and district councillors. A vital role has been played by the pupils of Foveran primary school, which is close to the road along which an increasing volume of traffic thunders at ever increasing speeds. The children presented the petition to me so that I could bring it to the House. It reads:
The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Gordon showeth that we express deep concern that the Balmedie to Tipperty section of the A92 road is extremely dangerous in its present condition, has been the site of too many serious accidents, and that this road is very close to Foveran Primary School.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland the need to improve the road by the construction of a dual carriageway, and to announce an early starting date to such improvements.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Walton Neurosciences Trust

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I was moved to initiate the debate because of the fear that has arisen throughout Liverpool—certainly through the north side of the city—that the Walton centre for neurology and neurosurgery was at real risk because of developments within the Mersey regional health authority. It is a specialist centre and was one of the trusts in the vanguard of the Government's changes to the national health service. When it opted for trust status, it was driven—I choose my words carefully—by the then chairman of the RHA, Sir Donald Wilson.
Hospitals and services within the Mersey region, including the centre in Walton, sought trust status on the basis of promises that there would be funding availability and that flexibility would be given to ensure that the trusts were successful in their own right and in their right as hospitals. However, after they became trusts, the pan-Liverpool review body reported. The body was set up to examine health care provision throughout the area. Tucked away inside one of the consultation documents was the suggestion that neurosciences should be relocated away from the Walton hospital site at the Royal Liverpool hospital in the city centre. That was despite the investment of millions of pounds in the site at Walton. I stress that the centre is highly specialised.
The proposal to relocate the unit also ignored the view expressed in the review body document of 31 July 1989. It said that the neurosurgeons and neurologists were more than happy where they were. The decision seemed to be administratively driven to ease Walton away from that site.
The fate that was dangled before the Walton was a different scenario—a transfer from the Walton site to a new purpose-built unit at Fazackerley hospital. Such a move would have required a massive infusion of cash—a projected cost of about £40 million. That was hardly likely to happen, given that, right next door to the Fazackerely hospital, the Government were committed to wasting £110 million on a new prison. I doubt whether the money would be found to provide the hospital extension that would have been required.
The Walton centre is developing into a centre of excellence. It serves a catchment area of about 3 million people. That includes Merseyside, north Wales, the Isle of Man and west Lancashire. In certain circumstances, it takes cases from much further afield. It provides a high-quality integrated diagnostic and therapeutic service on that site. It has a highly skilled team. It caters particularly for patients with disorders of the nervous system.
If the service is to be successful and effective, it must continue to be an integrated multidisciplinary neurosciences unit. That cannot be the case if the neurosciences unit is fragmented by parts of it being dispersed to district general hospitals. The unit must be developed. The people who run the place want to develop it as a centre for head, neck and spine surgery, neurology and neurological rehabilitation. Thus, the centre is an ideal site for a major trauma centre. It remains under some threat, because

saving pounds appears to be more important to some people than saving lives.
We need to put the specialist centre into context. The same pan-Liverpool review body has been a source of contention in many parts of health service provision on Merseyside. Only yesterday, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), we had a visit from the nurses of the north Mersey community trust. As my hon. Friend said, the trust is the first of its type. I believe that it is being watched by bodies around the country to see what happens. It was set up in 1859 by William Rathbone and Florence Nightingale. It is going through what can only be described as a de-skilling exercise, which will lead to a diminution of the services offered to people by the dedicated, skilled nurses who go out into the community.
Broadgreen hospital is to lose its accident and emergency department, as is the Walton site. It has been said that the casualty department of a hospital is literally and metaphorically the doorway through which patients come. It keeps the complimentary and acute services busy.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I wish to amplify my hon. Friend's point about Broadgreen hospital. It relates directly to the wider implications of the York review, which refers to the Walton unit. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the national health service, visited Mersey regional health authority in December. I wish to quote a section of the document that he produced then. He referred to the main bed reductions that would be made in the Liverpool area. There are several reasons why such bed reductions are being considered. He said:
Main bed reductions would need to take place at the Aintree and Broadgreen Trusts … The configuration options for"—
what the document described as—
the rump of Broadgreen would then be to merge with the CTC Trust"—
the other trust on the Broadgreen site—
or to become an annexe of the Royal".
It then referred directly to the neurosciences unit and said:
The other provider issue concerned the Aintree Trust moving off the Walton site"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is making a speech rather than an intervention.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the many uncertainties. If different voices are heard on behalf of the health service, that undermines those people who want to put their faith in a particular site.
I used the metaphor of closing the door. If it is closed, inevitably the acute services will be relocated to those hospitals with accident and emergency provision. If there is no such provision, as sure as night follows day, many of the services currently located at the Walton centre will go. That will be no fault of those trying to do a job there, but because the means to do the job will not be at their disposal.
The logic is inescapable: if the casualty provision is taken away from Walton hospital, it will be difficult for the neurosciences experts there to defend their wish to remain at that site. The ideal of Walton becoming a major trauma


centre then becomes a distant dream. A sham exercise is taking place, under the guise of consultation, on accident and emergency provision in the city.
It is strange that, while that consultation is taking place, £1·9 million has been granted to the Royal Liverpool hospital, through the outpost system, to expand its accident and emergency unit. That seems to pre-empt the outcome of any independent consultation. It shows that the regional health authority is determined to have its way, come what may. I fear that we will soon be faced with a fait accompli in accident and emergency provision for the area.
If the health authority's preferred option—No. 2.2.1 —is implemented, on my computation it will mean that about 690 beds will have been lost since the creation of the trust in the area covered by the pan-Liverpool review. It would mean the loss of 34 of the 135 beds that existed at the Walton centre when it originally took trust status.
The accountants who seem increasingly to be in charge of the health service would not think it viable, in terms of numbers, for the centre to continue on that site; yet the centre is an extremely valuable resource—not just its buildings and equipment, but its highly skilled, dedicated, motivated and professional teams of staff.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that the number and range of specialisms at the centre are quite remarkable. It does neurosurgery, spinal surgery, head injuries, intensive care, paediatric neurosurgery, neurology, disability and rehabilitation, pain relief neurophysiology, neuroradiology and neuropathology. The list goes on and on. In addition, the centre is heavily involved in teaching and research, and it has strong links with Liverpool univerity's department of neurosciences. There is also the adjacent Pain Foundation, of which the Minister will be aware, as I understand that it is the only one of its kind in the country, if not in Europe.
The Walton centre has every intention to develop those links. It wants to establish chairs in neurosurgery, pain science and rehabilitation, to add to the new chair that has just been established in neurology. All those welcome and progressive developments are under threat.
Walton is a hospital with strong community links. Everybody in north Liverpool knows it—all have had some dealings with it at some stage. Despite its faults, it has a reputation as a good, caring hospital that clearly identifies with the local community.
The "strategic direction" document for 1993–98, put out by the centre itself, contains four important points about future site options. The first is:
We will continue discussions with Aintree Hospitals Trust to reach an understanding of the final disposition of services and the timescale of any changes.
That is important because, effectively, there are still two trusts on one site: the Aintree hospital trust and the Walton centre.
The second says:
we plan to remain on the Walton site so long as the other specialties remain or can be attracted to this site.
Obviously, without those specialties, the site is not viable.
The third point is:
The best option is to develop the Walton Centre as a Centre for Head, Neck and Spine Surgery, Neurology and Neurological Rehabilitation. With this combination of specialities it would become an ideal site for a major Trauma Centre.
Last but not least, there is a

need for a separate in depth study of the possible options for the provision of Neurosciences which will clearly include the preferred option for staying on the Walton Site.
In the summer of 1991, I visited the hospital to see the opening of the latest state-of-the-art technology—a huge scanner. As an Evertonian, I was pained by the fact that it was opened by Graham Souness; nevertheless, the scanner had cost millions of pounds, which had been paid by public subscription. The working people of Liverpool are renowned for the generosity they show to charitable causes: anyone who knows anything about Alderhey children's hospital knows about the funds that are raised. More important, this instance was undeniable proof of the commitment of the people of Liverpool to the centre, which is very popular and very effective.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The people of Liverpool may strongly support Walton hospital—as they support Broadgreen—and the trust itself may have plans for its own future that it is seeking to develop. However, Mersey regional health authority clearly has other plans. Over the last five years, three separate documents have been issued, each saying something different. The document issued in December included a third option for the neurosurgical unit.

Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite all the protestations of the people of Liverpool —even when the trusts were being established—despite the huge number of petitions that were collected and despite united opposition, the regional health authority, under the chairmanship of Sir Donald Wilson, seemed hell bent on using Liverpool and its hospitals as a test bed. I hope to say more about that later.
I was talking about the generosity of Liverpudlians to causes such as the Walton hospital. I hope that the Minister will reciprocate by giving an unequivocal commitment that the Walton centre will remain where it is, and substantially as it is. We all recognise that change is inevitable, but I have given my reasons for hoping that the Minister will make such a commitment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) suggested a moment ago, there has been a recurrent theme in the Mersey region—the theme of health care being used as a test bed for the latest cost-cutting exercise devised by those who are motivated by cost saving rather than life saving. I do not like to say that, but it is the only conclusion that I can reach.
What is perhaps unique about the Walton centre is that, having followed the line of Sir Donald Wilson and Tory ideologues who forced through these so-called reforms, the trust is now discovering that the idea that it—the trust —was the way forward for the centre is not all that it seemed at the time. The blunt truth is that the money for further developments has run out: it is not there on the scale that is required for rationalisation of the kind that was planned—for example, the transfer to the Fazackerley site.
The health authority is looking for ever more ways of cutting costs, without proper regard to patient care of the need to keep specialist units together in the only way that will ensure their viability. Tonight, the Minister should consider—it is an important point for him politically—not only the opposition that he would naturally expect from Labour Members but the concerns of those who believed the Government and their promises and involved


themselves in trusts. Will the Minister tell us whether those people are now as dispensable as many of the health facilities on Merseyside appear to be?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am glad to have a chance to respond to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in this debate on the future of the Walton centre for neurology and neurosurgery.
The centre has been an NHS trust since April 1992. It is situated in the grounds of Walton hospital, and for many years has provided a service to patients from all 10 districts in Mersey region, as well as Clwyd and Gwynedd in north Wales, parts of west Lancashire and the Isle of Man. The total population it serves is about 3 million. It is recognised as a centre of excellence, as the hon. Gentleman said, and it enjoys a first-class reputation in the local community and beyond for neurosurgery, pain relief and neurology services.
I was pleased to visit the centre last October and to open the excellent new operating theatre suite—I am afraid that I am not a footballer—which was hugely impressive. It had been refurbished with the addition of a fourth operating theatre and a new five-bed recovery suite. I saw a presentation of the centre's fully integrated computer system, which is the first of its kind in the country.
Waiting times in the centre are extremely encouraging. No one is waiting more than 12 months for treatment. The new scanner, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, was opened 12 months ago at a cost of £1·4 million, is being used with great success. Other encouraging developments include the refurbishment of the centre's out-patient facilities and the appointment of two new consultants. The centre received recognition from the NHS Management Executive for meeting its financial duties and is reporting an encouraging financial outturn.
Why are we having this debate? I well understand the hon. Member's concern about the future of the centre, stemming immediately from the recent review of hospital services in Liverpool conducted by the York Health Economics Consortium. The hon. Member is aware that the York study was set up to see how the recommendations of the "Pan-Liverpool" report could be developed and implemented. "Pan-Liverpool" made a number of recommendations, including the future of acute services and neurosciences.
The York review must be viewed against the background in Liverpool of a population that has declined by more than 8 per cent. in the past 10 years up to 1991, the fact that Liverpool health authority is a loser under weighted capitation funding; changes to clinical practice that affect everywhere—not only Liverpool—moves to more day-case surgery; development of so-called keyhole techniques; and other developments that involve fewer days having to be spent in bed.
A key conclusion of the York study was that, due to the factors that I have just mentioned and others, fewer people in Liverpool will need to stay in hospital, and that those who stay will do so for a shorter time and will benefit from non-invasive techniques and improved rehabilitation. This suggests that the health care of the future will be much less dependent on hospital beds and much more community-focused.
The study recommended that the city would be best served by two district general hospitals based at the Royal Liverpool and Aintree hospital trusts, supported by facilities at Broadgreen.
I have already said that "Pan-Liverpool" made recommendations on neurosciences. The clear recommendation was that services should be moved to Fazackerley, part of the Aintree trust. Although the regional health authority welcomed the general direction of service development proposed in "Pan-Liverpool", no further action has been taken on the recommendation. That is how we stand today.
However, I well understand concerns about the future. I have said already that a fundamental part of the Liverpool health authority's proposals is the development of Aintree hospital trust as one of the two centres for the city's acute centres. Allied to that, Aintree has had to consider its configuration.
The first stage of implementation, in the shape of major capital investment in a new £7 million accident and emergency unit at Fazackerley, is already under way. The new unit is due to open in summer 1994 and will provide one of the most modern and the third largest A and E departments in the country. The trust plans to transfer all in-patient acute services to the Fazackerley site over approximately the next three years, with out-patient services, day surgery and diagnostic services remaining on the Walton site to provide continuing access for the local community.
Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, the proposed changes on the Walton site of the Aintree trust may have consequences for the Walton centre for neurology and neurosurgery. The future location of the centre can be determined only by the demands of the service. I am sure that the Walton centre is correct in approaching the "problem" as an opportunity. The trust board is aiming to retain the Walton site as the preferred option. As I said, there is clear evidence of the significant progress that the centre has made since being established as a second wave trust. The centre has strong links with the university of Liverpool, the Pain Foundation and many voluntary agencies which assist it in carrying out its work throughout the region.
As I said, the future location of the Walton centre must be determined by the demands of the service. Some patients treated at the centre require the skills of other specialties in addition to those of the centre. Co-operation is more successful when staff are on the same site. The centre plans to remain on the Walton site as long as the other specialties necessary remain on, or can be attracted to, the site, thus monitoring the well established patterns of co-operation of clinicians and support services.
Another factor that needs to be taken into account in a transfer off site is the cost in both revenue and capital terms. The cost may be considerable. The current purpose-built accommodation was built in 1972 and is in good condition. Recent improvements have been the completion of an upgrading of the new theatre facility to provide a fourth theatre and a new recovery suite. They are strong arguments for retaining the site.
However, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the commitment he seeks, that there will be no changes. I must emphasise, however, that decisions have not yet been taken. "Pan-Liverpool" remains the definitive statement of


Mersey's policy, and the region intends to revisit the specific recommendations when other developments become clear.
Let me emphasise that any change will be purchaser-driven. In other words, it is about patients and a perception by the purchaser of the needs of patients, not about institutions. We have faced the same problem in many large cities, including London where, recently, well established and well loved institutions, which have been in existence for many years, have become vulnerable because of changes in population and clinical practice. It may become necessary to take very difficult decisions based on two things.
First, such a decision would have to be based on the fact that, as a result of the separation of the purchaser and provider, purchasers have the obligation to purchase provision in line with the needs of a specific population —no more, no less. If they do more than that, other parts of the NHS must, by definition, make sacrifices.
It is a difficult balance to strike. Difficult decisions have had to be made in London. I myself have recently been involved in difficult decisions involving well loved and well established hospitals in Birmingham, and there is a similar situation in south Manchester. It is a feature of the large conurbations of this country that historical factors have often resulted in over-provision and duplication of services, which cannot but have an effect on the rest of the NHS.
As I have said, we have to find out, from the point of view of the purchaser—

Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the Minister see the distinction between the Walton centre and the type of hospital that he is talking about? I have explained, and the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that the catchment area of the specialist unit is far wider than the urban areas of Liverpool, and includes north Wales, the Isle of Man, west Lancashire and the whole of Merseyside. So the catchment area does not fluctuate a great deal.
Will the hon. Gentleman also deal in more detail with the withdrawal of other acute services from the site? What does that mean for the future of the Walton centre?

Mr. Sackville: We are not talking about the future of the centre as an entity. It is a centre of excellence; it is needed; it will be provided. We are talking about the knock-on effect of changes to acute services in the Liverpool area. There are various possibilities, as I have said, and the decisions have not been made, and cannot be made at this stage.
I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the value of the centre is well recognised, and that it provides an excellent service. Its future must be decided in tandem with changes that may be made to acute services in Liverpool, but the hon. Gentleman need not doubt that the centre will remain, and will continue to serve the people of the north-west of England in the excellent way in which it has done since 1972.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.